HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 01-08 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JANUARY 8, 1990
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Employee Service Recognition Program
-This is the 11th annual presentation by the City Council
of service awards to City employees to recognize years of
service to the City.
5. Open Forum
6. Select Mayor Pro tem
7. 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.
8. Mayoral Appointments:
*a. Human Rights and Resources Commission
*b. Park & Recreation Commission
*c. Housing Commission
*d. Planning Commission
*e. Weed Inspector - Brad Hoffman
9. Performance Bond Release:
*a. Parkway Place, 6601 Shingle Creek Parkway
10. Designate Official Newspaper - Brooklyn Center PostNews
11. Presentation:
DCA Inc. will give a presentation on proposed employee tax
shelters
12. Resolutions:
*a. Designating Depositories of City Funds
- Annual resolution to authorize the City Treasurer to
deposit funds in the Marquette Brookdale Bank and to
use other banks for investment purposes.
*b. Authorizing the City Manager to Write -off Uncollectible
Checks
- Resolution to write -off uncollectible checks from 1987
and 1988.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- January 8, 1990
*c. Authorizing the City Manager to Write -off Accounts
Receivable
- Resolution to write -off accounts receivables that have
been determined to be uncollectible.
*d. Establishing an Interest Rate on Loans from the
Investment Trust Fund to Other Funds of the City of
Brooklyn Center
- Resolution to adjust interest rate on loans from the
City's investment fund to other City funds.
e. Entering into a Security Agreement for Safekeeping of
City Investments
-This resolution would allow the City Treasurer to
enter into an agreement with a trust institution to
provide third party safekeeping of the City's
investments.
*f. Awarding Boiler and Machinery Insurance Contract
*g. Awarding Liquor Liability Insurance Contract
*h. Awarding Workers' Compensation Insurance Contract
*i. Authorizing the Mayor and City Council to Enter into an
Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and North
Hennepin Mediation Project
*j. Amending the 1990 General Fund Budget and Accepting bid
and Awarding contract for Sidewalk Snowplow and Blower
-It is recommended that the low bid be accepted and
that funds be appropriated from the municipal state aid
street fund.
k. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1990-02 -
Construction of Well No. 10, Accepting Proposal for
Engineering Services and Approving Execution of a
Contract for Services
-It is recommended that the City proceed with phase I
of the plan for recommended improvements to the City's
water supply system. The proposed resolution would
authorize execution of a contract for engineering
services as needed for construction of proposed "well
No. 10".
1. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 - Water
Distribution System Improvements and Directing the City
Engineer to Prepare Plans and Specifications for this
Improvement
-These improvements are recommended to be constructed
under phase I in conjunction with the well No. 10
improvement.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- January 8, 1990
*m. Accepting Quote and Authorizing the Purchase of a
Property Tracking System for the Police Department
*n. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the
Dedicated Public Service of James McCloskey
o. Requesting MNDOT to Transfer Jurisdiction of the
Service Road East of T.H. 252 between 65th Avenue North
and 66th Avenue North to the City of Brooklyn Center
13. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.)
a. An Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility and Drainage
Easement in Lot 1, Block 1, Brookdale Square Second
Addition
-This item was offered for a first reading on December
18, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on
December 27, 1989, and is offered this evening for a
second reading.
b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 22 of the City Ordinances
Relating to a Tax Imposed Upon Lodging
-This item was offered for a first reading on December
18, 1989, published in the City's official newspaper on
December 27, 1989, and is offered this evening for a
second reading.
C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 Regardin g Personnel
-This amendment would add Columbus Day as a paid
holiday. This item is offered this evening for a first
reading.
d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 to Establish a Planned
Unit Development Zoning District
-This item is offered this evening for a first reading.
14. Discussion Items:
a. Report on 1989 Activities of the Administrative Traffic
Committee
b. Cigarette Vending Machine Sales
C. January 22, 1990, Council Meeting
*15. Licenses
16. Adjournment
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ANINT UAL
EMPL 0 YEE RECOGNITION NIGHT
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
JANUARY 8, 1990
IIERN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ANNUAL EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION NIGHT
January 8, 1990
Tonight is the eleventh annual presentation by the City Council of
service awards to City Employees to recognize years of service to the
City. Recognition is to be given tonight to those employees who have
observed the anniversary of twenty, twenty —five, or thirty years of
permanent full—time employment with the City. The awards are a part
of a service recognition program approved by the City Council in
1979. Six persons, who are listed below, will receive awards this
evening.
EMPLOYEES WITH TWENTY YEARS OF SERVICE
JOHN BENTZEN
Parks Maintenance
January 5, 1970
ARNIE MAVIS
Director of Recreation
October 6, 1969
KATHY FLESHER
Recreation Program Supervisor
August 25, 1969
AL HARTMANN
Engineering Technician
June 30, 1969
EMPL 0 YEES WITH TWENTY—FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE
PAUL HOLMLUND
Director of Finance
August 28, 1964
EMPLOYEES WITH THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE
JAMES LINDSAY
Chief of Police
January 10, 1959
The employees recognized this evening are representative of all
City employees who serve their City well.
ER1
LISTING OF ACTIVE CITY EMPLOYEES WITH TWENTY OR MORE
YEARS OF SERVICE AS OF JANUARY 8, 1990
--------------------------------------------------------
THIRTY OR MORE YEARS OF SERVICE
ROBERT CAHLANDER, Supervisor of Streets and Parks (34)
JAMES LINDSAY, Chief of Police (30)
TWENTY-FIVE OR MORE YEARS OF SERVICE
RICHARD SCHWAB Public Works Supervisor 28
p ( )
RICHARD HANDY, Police Officer (27)
LEROY CHRISTENSON, Police Officer (27)
GARY GIVING, Engineering Technician (26)
DONALD SOLLARS, Police Sergeant (26)
PAUL HOLMLUND, Director of Finance (25)
TWENTY OR MORE YEARS OF SERVICE
DAVID WERNER, Police Sergeant (24)
SCOTT KLINE, Police Captain (23)
DONALD SPEHN, Police Officer (23)
M. ROBERT HOLMES, Public Works Dispatcher (22)
ERLAND SHELLEY, Police Officer (22)
GREGORY WEEKS, Police Sergeant (21)
RICHARD NORDSTROM, Public Utilities Maintenance (21)
AL HARTMANN, Engineering Technician (20)
KATHY FLESHER, Recreation Program Supervisor (20)
ARNIE MAVIS, Director of Recreation (20)
JOHN BENTZEN, Parks Maintenance (20)
Eighty employees, of a total of one hundred thirty —four
full —time authorized City Employees, have served the
City for more than five years. An analysis of permanent
full —time service as of January 8, 1990 follows:
Accumulative
Employees with 30 or more years service 2 1
Employees with 25 or more years service 6 8
Employees with 20 or more years service 11 19
Employees with 15 or more years service 14 33
Employees with 10 or more years service 22 55
Employees with 5 or more years service 25 80
_Employees with less than 5 years service 54
Total Permanent City Employees 134
IIER2
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 1/8/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
q xAt�' P(�' Administrative Aide
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Several terms of appointment for advisory commissioners are due for consideration of reappointment
by the mayor and city council. Each of the commissioners has been notified, and they have
• expressed their intentions on whether or not they wish to be reappointed. Below is a summary of
these positions.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESOURCES COMMISSION
Donna Stoderl wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -92
Susan Larsen wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -92
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Sarah Robinson Pollock wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -92
Art Mead wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -92
Don Peterson wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -92
HOUSING COMMISSION
Reynold Johnson wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -92
PLANNING COMMISSION
Molly Malecki wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -91
Ellamae Sander wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -91
Bertil Johnson wants to be reappointed to serve through 12 -31 -91
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1 -8 -90
Agenda ftem Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Performance Guarantee Release
DEPARTMENT A zL:
, ..o .
Signature - Director of Planning a sp cti n
************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The following performance guarantee is recommended for release:
• 1. Parkway Place
6601 Shingle Creek Parkway
Planning Commission Application No. 84009
Amount of Guarantee - $40,000 bond
Obligor - Shingle Creek Land Company
All required improvements have now been installed on this project. Stop sign
and street sign are in at intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Parkway Circle.
Recommend total release.
Submitted by
Gary Shallcross
Planner
•
NEWSPAPERS 331")
CHAPTER 331A
NEWSPAPERS
` J Ct ryefirtitiona. 331A.07 Affidavit of flrhlicatiotl,
gequuements for a qualiped 331A.03 Computation of rime.
nciPe!_
331A.09 Publication eo auAday.
03 Where notice - published. 331A,10 Change of name or divontinuanct Of
OA p oft OCwspaper for official newspQW,
pub0atiogs_ 33 LA. 11 ADplicatiou.
* _3A.0$ FonA of public notim.
A 0b Tots for publication.
391A.�Y INFINMONS.
Subdivision 1. As used in sections 331A,01 to 331A.11, the terms defined have
Vaeanings given them except as otherwise expressly provided or indicated by the
'pptt ;ext. .
Subd. 2. "Known office of issue" means the principal office maintained by the
bltscier or managing officer during a newspaper's regular business hours to gather
and sell advertisements and subscriptions, whether or not printing or any other
o peratiotis of the newspaper are conducted at or from the office, and devoted primarily
w business related to the newspaper. A newspaper may have only one known office of
�e-
i Subd. 3. "Local public corporation" means a county, municipality, school district,
or any other local political subdivision or local or area district, commission, board, or
Authority.
Subd. 4. "Municipality" means a home rule charter or statutory city or town.
Subd. 5. "Newspaper" means a publication issued regularly by the same person
- of corporation, or a successor, whether the na of the publication is the same or
different.
Subd. b. "Proceedings" means the substance of all official actions taken by the
verning body of a local public corporation at any regular or special meeting, and at
iturnutn includes the subject matter of a motion, the persons malting and seconding
a motion, the roll call vote on a motion, the character of resolutions or ordinances
offered, including a brief description of their subject matter, and whether defeated or
Mopted.
Subd. 7. "Public notice" means every notice required or authorized by law or by
order of a court to be published by a qualified newspaper, and includes:
(a) every publication of laws, ordinances, resolutions, financial information, and
0mceedings intended to give notice in a particular area;
(b) every notice and certificate of election, facsimile ballot, notice of referendum,
. notice of public hearing before a governmental body, and notice of meetings of private
!ad public bodies required by law; and
(c) every summons, order, citation, notice of We or other notice which is intended
to inform a person that the person may or shall do an act or exercise a right within a
designated period or upon or by a designated date.
(d) this subdivision contains no independent requirement for the publication of x
MY public notice.
Subd. 8. "Qualified newspaper" means a newspaper which complies with all of
provisions of section 331A.02. The following terms, when found in laws referring
io the publication of a public notice, shall be taken to mean a qualified newspaper:
"t7u41ified legal newspaper," "legal newspaper," "official newspaper," "newspaper," and
';Alediurn of official and legal publication."
r: Subd. 9. "Secondary office" means an office established by a newspaper in a
Community other than that in which its known office of issue is located, in the same
331A.01 NEWSPAPERS 7076
or an adjoining county, to enhance its coverage of and service to that community, open
on a regular basis to gather news and sell advertisements and subscriptions, whether
or not printing or any other operations of the newspaper are conducted at or from the
office, and devoted primarily to business related to the newspaper.
Subd. 10. "Summary" means an accurate and intelligible abstract or synopsis of
the essential elements of proceedings, ordinances, resolutions, and other official actions, `.
It shall be written in a clear and coherent manner, and shall, to the extent possible,
avoid the use of technical or legal terms not generally familiar to the public. When a
summary is published, the publication shall clearly indicate that the published material
is only a summary and that the full text is available for public inspection at a designated
location. A summary published in conformity with this section shall be deemed to A
fulfill all legal publication requirements as completely as if the entire matter which was
summarized had been published. No liability shall be asserted against the local public '
corporation in connection with the publication of a summary or agenda.
History: 1984 r 543 s 20,• 1986 c 444
331.A.02 R>EQUIUMENTS FOR A QUALIFIED NEWSPAPER.
Subdivision 1. Qualification. No newspaper in this state shall be entitled to any
compensation or fee for publishing any public notice unless it is qualified as a medium
of official and legal publication. A newspaper that is not qualified must inform a public
body that presents a public notice for publication that it is not qualified. To be qualified N
as a medium of official and legal publication, a newspaper shall:
' (a) be printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and
f[` sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 1,000 square inches;
E I
(b) if a daily, be distributed at least five days each week, or if not a daily, be
distributed at least once each week, for 50 Weeks each year. In any week in which a
legal holiday is included, not more than four issues of a daily paper are necessary; F
.(c) in at least half of its issues each year, have no more than 75 percent of its =
r printed space comprised of advertising material and paid public notices. In all of its
issues each year, have 25 percent, if published more often than weekly, or 50 percent,
if weekly, of its news columns devoted to news of local interest to the community which <
t it purports to serve. Not more than 25 percent of its total nonadvertising column inches
in any issue may wholly duplicate any other publication unless the duplicated material
is from recognized general news services;
- (d) be circulated in the local public corporation which it purports to serve, and
either have at least 500 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, orbave at least
500 copies regularly distributed without charge to local residents; _
(e) have its known office of issue established in either' the county in which lies, in
( whole or in part, the local public corporation which the newspaper purports to Serve,
or in an adjoining county;
(f) file a copy of each issue immediately with the state historical society;
j (g) be made available at single or subscription prices to any person, corporation
s Partnership, or other unincorporated association requesting the newspaper and makin8
the applicable payment, or be distributed without charge to local residents;
(h) have complied with all the foregoing conditions of this subdivision for at least
one year immediately preceding the date of the notice publication;
t (i) the newspaper must between October 1 and December 31 of each year publish
and submit to the secretary of state, along with a filing fee of $25, a sworn United Statts
Post Office second -class statement of ownership and Circulation or a statement of
ownership and circulation verified by a recognized independent circulation auditing
agency covering a period of not less than one year ending no earlier thin the June 30
preceding the filing deadline.
Sub& 2. EArlier qualification. Newspapers which have been qualified, on May
20, 1965, as mediums of official and legal publication shall remain qualified only if they
meet the requirements of subdivision 1, except as follows:
i
Y _
331a.44 NEWSPAPERS
331A.04 DESIGNATION OF A NEWSPAPER FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS,
Subdivision 1. The governing body of any local public corporation, when autho•
` rized or required by statute or charter to designate a newspaper for publication Of its
official proceeu p and public notices, shall desipate a newspaper which is a qualified
medium of offstaal and legal publication in the following priority.
Subd. 2. If there are one or more qualified newspapers, the known office of issue
of which are located within the local public corporation, one of them shall be desig.
nated.
Subd. 3. When no qualified newspaper has a known office of issue located in the
local public corporation, but one or more qualified newspapers maintain a secondary E
office there, one, of them shall be designated.
Subd. 4. When no qualified newspaper has its known office of issue or a secondary
office located within the local public corporation, then a qualified newspaper of general
circulation there shall be designated.
Subd, 5. If a local public corporation is without an official newspaper, or if the
publisher refuses t0 publish a particular public notice, matters required to be published
shall be published in a newspaper designated as provided in
ry two or moreunzs
governing body of a local public corporation with tenito in
may, if deemed in the public interest, designate a separate qualified newspaper for each
county.
History: 1954 c 543 s 23
331A.05 FORM OF PUBLIC NOTICES.
. Subdivision 1. All public notices shall be printed or otherwise disseminated in the
English language.
Subd, 2, Unless otherwise specified by a particular statute, or by order of a court,
publication of a public notice shall be as follows:
(a) the notice shall be published once;
(b) if the notice is intended to inform the public about a future event, the last
publication shall occur not more than 14 days and not less than seven days before the
event;
(c) if the notice is intended to inform the public about a past action or event, the
last publication shall occur not more than 45 days after occurrence of the action or
event.
Subd. 3. Except as otherwise directed by a particular statute requiring publicatiott
of a public notice, a public notice shall be printed in a type face no smaller than six point
with a lower case alphabet of go point. Larger type faces may be used.
Subd. 4. Every public notice shall include a title or caption in a body type 11
smaller than brevier or eight point referring to the content of the notice, Larger type
faces may be used.
Subd. S. The governing body of a local public corporation may, to better inf
the public, increase the frequency of publication of a public notice beyond the mini=
mum required by a particular statute. It may use forms and styles for the notice as
deems appropriate, including the use of display advertisements and graphics. It m
publish or disseminate the notice in other newspapers in addition to the newspaper
required to be designated under
der section 331A.04. Regardless of whether a pa
statute specifies "legal notice," "public notice "notice," or uses similar terms,
governing body may use whatever form for the published notice that it deems app
ate in order to adequately inform the public, subject to the requirements of secuo� �•
331A.01 to 331A 11, Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this subdivision 81R :•
require the governing body of a local public corporation to use the options descry'
Subd, 6. Now" g in this section shall invalidate or affect any statutory or charte
iGUl�
provision imposing additional or special qualifications for publication of pa rt ,
notices or proceedings.
History: 1984 c 543 s 24 —'—
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PRESENTATION OF EMPLOYEE TAX SHELTER PROPOSAL
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ZAe
No comments to supplement this report below/attached-
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _)
EXPLANATION
® Mr. Ardy Prekker from DCA, Inc. will be present Monday night to discuss with the
Council various ways in which the City can shelter its employees from income taxes
through payment of pre -tax benefits through the payroll system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
--------------------
Upon completion of Mr. Prekker's presentation, the Council will be asked to
authorize the City Manager to proceed with implementing any or all of the shelters
as pres- ented.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
To direct the City Manager to proceed with the implementation of any or all of
the tax shelters presented.
•
4a
Member
introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, that Marquette Brookdale Bank be and is hereby designated as the
depository for the funds of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following named banks are hereby
designated additional depositories to be used for investment purposes:
First National Bank of Minneapolis
Marquette Minneapolis Bank
Norwest Bank Minneapolis
First National Bank of St. Paul
American National Bank of St. Paul
First Western Bank
Camden Norwest Bank
First Minnesota Savings & Loan Association
Midwest Federal Savings & Loan Association
Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Association
The city treasurer is authorized to deposit City funds guaranteed by
the Federal Deposit it Insura
nce Corporation poration or the Federal Savings and Loan
Insurance Corporation and such additional funds not to exceed the amount of 90%
of collateral pledged to the City, and approved by the City, by said depository.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the persons generally authorized by the
City Charter to act for the City in any of its business with the depository are
any persons holding office from time to time as city manager and city treasurer.
All checks drawn upon an account of the City shall be signed by both of the
above designated persons.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city manager ger is Gerald G. Splinter and
the city treasurer is Paul W. Holmlund.
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 d
Agenda Item Number / b
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE CHECKS
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Signature - title
************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** * ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached !�
EXPLANATION
® I have attached a resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, would authorize
staff to write -off approximately $5,000 in uncollectible checks. These checks were
received in 1987 and 1988 and nearly all of them were taken by the three off -sale
liquor stores. The last time that we wrote -off checks was in 1988, two years ago.
All of the uncollectible checks have either been turned over to the Police Department
or our outside collection agency. Neither has been able to collect on these checks.
It is our policy to allow the liquor stores' supervisors to first try to collect
the bad checks. If they cannot do so in a short time, they are then turned over
to the collection agency. When checks total $50 or more from an individual, they
are turned over to the Police Department for prosecution. The Department will not
accept checks for prosecution if the total for an individual is less then $50.
Prosecution is very difficult and seldom successful.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that these checks be deemed to be uncollectible and written -off.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
Authorize the write -off of the the receivables by adopting the attached resolution.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MA14AGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE CHECKS
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported the following checks made payable
to the City of Brooklyn Center are uncollectible because the payer's checking accounts
upon which they are drawn have been closed and that attempts to locate the payers
have been unsuccessful:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to authorize the City Manager to write -off from the City records as
uncollectible the following checks:
CHECK REASON FOR
PAYOR DATED RETURN AMOUNT DISPOSITION
-------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES:
------------------ - - - - --
Micheal Lemon 2 -13 -87 Account Closed 15.99 Collection Agency
Micheal Lemon 2 -13 -87 Account Closed 11.16 Collection Agency
Michael Aarestad 4 -21 -87 Account Closed 6.13 Collection Agency
Michael Aarestad 4 -20 -87 Account Closed 10.73 Collection Agency
Karen Ackerman 6 -16 -88 Account Closed 18.11 Collection Agency
Richard Alexander 12 -8 -87 Account Closed 37.18 Collection Agency
Craig Anderson 4 -9 -88 Account Closed 24.55 Collection Agency
Richard Andrus 6 -3 -88 Account Closed 18.81 Collection Agency
Richard Andrus 5 -31 -88 Account Closed 10.00 Collection Agency
Richard Andrus 6 -1 -88 Account Closed 11.89 Collection Agency
Richard Andrus 6 -2 -88 Account Closed 8.72 Collection Agency
Richard Andrus 5 -31 -88 Account Closed 6.28 Collection Agency
Lisa Armstrong 4 -3 -87 Account Closed 19.17 Collection Agency
Lisa Armstrong 4 -18 -87 Account Closed 19.73 Collection Agency
James Ballard 2 -22 -88 Account Closed 18.42 Collection Agency
James Ballard 2 -24 -88 Account Closed 11.47 Collection Agency
Ginger Banez 12 -31 -87 Account Closed 27.16 Collection Agency
Joseph Blake 10 -2 -87 Account Closed 21.68 Collection Agency
Brooks Auto Body 11 -4 -87 Account Closed 31.73 Collection Agency
Scott Castillo 5 -7 -88 NSF 8.94 Collection Agency
Frank Chase, Jr. 1 -17 -87 NSF 6.49 Collection Agency
Regina Clark 8 -15 -87 NSF 26.12 Collection Agency
Jerome Collins 5 -28 -88 NSF 18.20 Collection Agency
Kelly Crane 10 -26 -87 NSF 4.50 Collection Agency
Carolyn Ooble 10 -19 -87 Account Closed 24.84 Collection Agency
Wholesale Carpet Brokers 11 -20 -87 Account Closed 23.50 Collection Agency
Kate Garvis 6 -25 -87 Account Closed 17.63 Collection Agency
# Terri Good 6 -6 -87 Account Closed 16.63 Collection Agency
Gale Graham 6 -26 -88 Account Closed 8.29 Collection Agency
Gale Graham 6 -30 -88 Account Closed 24.28 Collection Agency
Angela Hanson 11 -28 -87 Account Closed 36.11 Collection Agency
Blythe Hunt 7 -2 -87 Account Closed 16.58 Collection Agency
Blythe Hunt 8 -3 -87 Account Closed 25.00 Collection Agency
1 Jensen 1 -28 -88 NSF 15.80 Collection Agency
7 Patrick Ketz 8 -20 -87 Account Closed 13.00 Collection Agency
Patrick Ketz 8 -21 -87 Account Closed 14.09 Collection Agency
Vicky Larsen 6 -17 -87 Account Closed 20.43 Collection Agency
Kimbely Larson 10 -17 -87 Account Closed 57.70 Collection Agency
Jeffrey Lindberg 12 -11 -87 Account Closed 42.66 Collection Agency
Leesa Forcier 4 -29 -87 Account Closed 15.59 Collection Agency
John Lewis 7 -14 -88 NSF 58.57 Police
Karen Thalin 12 -2 -88 Account Closed 14.75 Letter
Dawn Ryan 11 -5 -88 NSF 11.38 Letter
Keith Addison 10 -10 -87 NSF 15.69 Collection Agency
Keith Addison 10 -7 -87 NSF 6.24 Collection Agency
Dennis Bacon 1 -18 -88 NSF 11.00 Collection Agency
Bradely Baldwin 11 -6 -87 Account Closed 10.84 Collection Agency
John Bartley 12 -9 -87 NSF 5.05 Collection Agency
Timothy Benjamin 5 -13 -87 NSF 13.56 Collection Agency
Timothy Benjamin 6 -10 -87 NSF 14.41 Collection Agency
Berry Sub - Contracting 9 -23 -88 Account Closed 24.71 Collection Agency
Stanely Betland 4 -21 -87 NSF 5.41 Collection Agency
Edmund Beiganowski 9 -5 -87 Account Closed 8.31 Collection Agency
Cheryl Bird 12 -8 -88 NSF 16.22 Letter
Pamela Bixby 10 -24 -87 Account Closed 13.58 Collection Agency
Michael Blazevic 1 -16 -88 NSF 5.41 Collection Agency
Dana Broeffle 2 -23 -88 NSF 8.66 Collection Agency
Patricia Cook 4 -26 -88 NSF 8.16 Collection Agency
Todd Churchill 6 -10 -88 NSF 13.47 Collection Agency
Todd Churchill 5 -26 -88 NSF 44.62 Collection Agency
Davids TV Repair 9 -23 -88 Account Closed 33.95 Collection Agency
Jill Davis 6 -16 -87 NSF 12.56 Collection Agency
Amy Degner 12 -4 -87 14SF 14.24 Collection Agency
Joseph Delaney 8 -13 -88 Account Closed 23.59 Collection Agency
Donald Dexter 3 -13 -87 Stop Payment 5.41 Collection Agency
Hawa Diggs 8 -5 -88 NSF 17.00 Collection Agency
Max Dominguez 4 -21 -87 NSF 10.57 Collection Agency
Max Dominguez 2 -20 -88 Account Closed 11.22 Collection Agency
Donald Driskill 7 -11 -87 Account Closed 14.90 Collection Agency
Michael Eddy 12 -11 -87 NSF 7.14 Collection Agency
Tami Fitzgibbons 2 -20 -87 Account Closed 10.83 Collection Agency
Angela Ford 6 -3 -88 NSF 12.72 Collection Agency
Trevis Foster 5 -21 -87 Account Closed 10.39 Collection Agency
Clarence Garner 1 -24 -88 Account Closed 15.35 Collection Agency
Jerald Glauvitz 2 -23 -87 Account Closed 12.30 Collection Agency
Gregory Goodsen 8 -25 -87 Account Closed 5.05 Collection Agency
Brad Gordhamer 12 -24 -87 NSF 15.49 Collection Agency
Ronald Gunderson 10 -22 -87 NSF 10.57 Collection Agency
Michael Hall 11 -8 -88 Account Closed 10.84 Collection Agency
Debra Hawthorne 12 -23 -87 NSF 11.26 Collection Agency
Clinton Hendricks 4 -9 -88 NSF 10.09 Collection Agency
Ira Hill 7 -20 -88 No Account 16.80 Collection Agency
Phyllis Hunter 11 -4 -88 Account Closed 22.89 Collection Agency
Raymond Jallah 3 -14 -87 Uncoll. Funds 10.46 Collection Agency
Brett Johnson 8 -13 -88 NSF 15.17 Collection Agency
Jerrod Kleinschmidt 3 -17 -88 Account Closed 10.84 Collection Agency
Jeffrey.Laquier 6 -10 -88 NSF 20.29 Collection Agency
Jeffrey Laquier 6 -23 -88 NSF 5.74 Collection Agency
Lorri Lewis 5 -5 -88 NSF 16.37 Collection Agency
Jeffrey Martinson 10 -25 -88 NSF 9.44 Letter
Jeffrey Martinson 11 -5 -88 NSF 16.82 Letter
Elizabeth McConnell 7 -9 -88 NSF
6.46 Collection
Agency
Dan McGee
7 -11 -87 Account Closed 6.89 Collection Agency
William McGill -
Jr. 6-24-87 NSF 9.59 Collection Agency
William McGill, Jr. 7 -8 -87 Account Closed 16.36 Collection Agenc
I Y
William _
m McKinley 3 25 -88 NSF 5.13 Collection t on Agency
William McKinley 3 -17 -88 NSF 20.92 Collection Agency
Gloria McKizzie 3 -1 -88 Account Closed 14.67 Letter
Gloria McKizzie 3 -1 -88 Account Closed 10.90 Letter
Lenn Mishak 3 -25 -88 NSF 11.33 Collection Agency
Marvell Moore 8 -18 -88 Account Closed 11.38 Collection Agency
Marvell Moore 8 -18 -88 Account Closed 8.67 Collection Agency
Marvell Moore 8 -13 -88 Account Closed 21.67 Collection Agency
Lunard Norman 4 -11 -87 Account Closed 10.83 Letter
Charles Morris 9 -18 -87 Account Closed 6.24 Collection Agency
Mary Mrsich -Clark 7 -12 -88 Payment Stopped 7.49 Collection Agency
Vicki Muncy 5 -4 -88 Account Closed 3.90 Collection Agency
Barbara Mundt 8 -26 -87 NSF 10.83 Collection Agency
Benjamin Nelson 7 -19 -88 NSF 5.59 Collection Agency
J.B. Nelson 12 -4 -87 Account Closed 6.92 Collection Agency
Tyka Nelson 9 -15 -87 Account Closed 5.85 Collection Agency
Edwin Neuberger 7 -3 -87 Account Closed 4.33 Collection Agency
Chanzadig Nhul 8 -19 -87 Account Closed 11.87 Collection Agency
g c
y
Chanzadig Nhul 8 -11 -87
Account Closed 5.52 Collection Agency
Cheryl Nutter 8 -8 -87 Account Closed 10.04 Collection Agency
James Owens 5 -27 -88 Account Closed 20.27 Collection Agency
Renee Pearson 1 -21 -88 Account Closed 10.80 Collection Agency
Thomas Perkins 10 -3 -87 Payment Stopped 6.89 Collection Agency
Emily Peterson 6 -20 -87 NSF 14.57 Collection Agency
Andrew Prosper 7 -30 -88 NSF 7.60 Collection Agency
Andrew Prosper 8 -3 -88 Account Closed 6.13 Collection Agency
Sandra Raskob 2 -12 -88 NSF 10.83 Collection Agency
Michael Rose 4 -15 -88 Account Closed 10.83 Collection Agency
Michael Rose 4 -29 -88 Account Closed 12.41 Collection Agency
Stephan Rosburg 8 -8 -88 NSF 20.00 Collection Agency
Kelly Rosen 8 -20 -88 Account Closed 15.92 Collection Agency
Kelly Rosen 8 -20 -88 Account Closed 17.91 Collection Agency
Wendy Schiller 4 -13 -88 Account Closed 8.24 Collection Agency
Kimberly Schultz 9 -16 -88 Account Closed 10.40 Collection Agency
Kristen Shaffer 7 -9 -88 NSF 10.62 Collection Agency
Brian Sheffield 7 -29 -88 NSF 7.90 Collection Agency
Brian Sheffield 7 -28 -88 NSF 4.61 Letter
Marlin Simonson 7 -6 -88 NSF 17.63 Collection Agency
Richard Stevens 10 -26 -87 Account Closed 12.90 Collection Agency
Tika Teague 12 -31 -87 NSF 26.00 Collection Agency
James Thompson, Jr. 3 -7 -87 Account Closed 12.59 Collection Agency
Larry Thompson 12 -23 -87 Account Closed 18.11 Collection Agency
Jamie Tobin 6 -30 -87 Account Closed 18.21 Collection Agency
Jamie Tobin 5 -15 -87 Account Closed 12.78 Collection Agency
Diane Touisgnant 7 -8 -87 Account Closed 9.75 Collection Agency
Tamera Uhlenkott 1 -14 -87 NSF 6.24 Collection Agency
Richard Walter 4 -21 -87 Account Closed 5.91 Collection Agency
Carlita Golden 8 -13 -88 Account Closed 29.82 Collection Agency
Ronald Walker 7 -23 -88 Account CLosed 31.12 Collection Agency
Ronald Walker 7 -16 -88 NSF 43.84 Collection Agency
Jeffry West 6 -16 -87 iISF 4.61 Collection Agency
Jeffry West 6 -13 -87 NSF 10.83 Collection Agency
Carlos Wilder 9 -29 -88 Account Closed 10.84 Collection Agency
Micheal Williams 8 -27 -88 NSF 9.05 Collection Agency
Brenda Wollenburg 8 -1 -87 NSF 6.28 Collection Agency
Helena Yancy 7 -29 -88 NSF 37.51 Collection Agency
Sandra Yancy 12 -30 -87 NSF 11.14 Collection Agency
Barbara Antilla 1 -23 -88 Forgery 50.00 Police
Valarie n D _ _
at
6 29 88 Stolen 16.86 Police
Lance Herndon 7 -29 -88 Account Closed 10.84 Police
Lance Herndon 8 -8 -83 Account Closed 10.29 Police
Lance Herndon 8 -17 -88 Account Closed 10.72 Police
Lance Herndon 8 -6 -88 Account Closed 14.43 Police
Lance Herndon 8 -15 -88 Account Closed 19.02 Police
Jean Jacobs 3 -6 -87 Forgery 19.52 Police
Cindy LaLuzerne 6 -28 -88 Forgery 73.39 Police
John Lewis 7 -14 -88 NSF 58.57 Police
Marvell Moore 8 -23 -88 Account Closed 28.41 Police
Marvell Moore 8 -23 -88 Account Closed 12.68 Police
Marvell Moore 8 -23 -88 Account Closed 43.69 Police
Cynthia Rask 6 -30 -87 Forgery 25.51 Police
Kyle Sjogren 6 -6 -88 Stolen 17.84 Police
Kyle Sjogren 6 -1 -88 Stolen 17.12 Police
Peggy Tacheny 10 -14 -87 NSF 72.07 Police
Charles Zacha 9 -30 -87 Account Closed 12.36 Police
Charles Zacha 10 -2 -87 Account Closed 22.68 Police
Charles Zacha -
10 -
2
87 Account
Closed
27.20 Police
Rodger Malikowski 7 -11 -87
NSF
19.89 Collection Agency
Keith _
Mayes 8-2-88 88 Account Closed 22.01 Collection Agency
Mayes g y
Keith Ma
y 8 -3 -88 Account Closed 12.75 Collection Agency
Guy Minolta 12 -21 -87 NSF 24.29 Collection Agency
Steven Olson 3 -24 -88 NSF 12.68 Collection Agency
Steven Olson 3 -30 -88 NSF 12.68 Collection Agency
Deanna Moller 7 -25 -87 Account Closed 17.11 Collection Agency
�I
Sheryl Mugabi 10 -31 -87 Account Closed 42.75 Collection Agency
Michael Murphy 8 -19 -87 NSF 45.00 Collection Agency
Michael Murphy 8 -20 -87 NSF 5.37 Collection Agency
Larry Nelson 2 -24 -87 NSF 30.65 Collection Agency
g y
Jane Nielsen
8 -8 -88 Account Closed 15.86 Collection Agency
I 9 cy
Jane Nielsen 8 -16 -88 Account Closed 22.44 Collection Agency
h Olson _ g y
Rudolph 2 -7 87 Account Closed 30.16 Collection Agency
Willard Olver 2 -3 -88 Account Closed 23.30 Collection Agency
David Palmer 11 -8 -88 NSF 6.46 Collection Agency
Gordon Peterson 1 -28 -87 Account Closed 19.51 Collection Agency
Gordon Peterson 2 -5 -87 Account Closed 21.30 Collection Agency
Mark Peterson 2 -10 -87 Account Closed 42.62 Collection Agency
John Phillips 8 -20 -87 Account Closed 24.67 Collection Agency
John Porth 11 -3 -87 Account Closed 24.96 Collection Agency
Robert Potvin 6 -20 -87 Account Closed 20.00 Collection Agency
Kevin Powell 1 -25 -87 Account Closed 21.02 Collection Agency
Terrance Ross 4 -22 -87 Account Closed 24.40 Collection Agency
Guy Sangren 11 -21 -87 NSF 12.36 Collection Agency
Guy Sangren 11 -21 -87 NSF 20.27 Collection Agency
Rickey-Scott 5 -25 -88 Account Closed 13.00 Collection Agency
Susan Webb Scott 10 -9 -87 Account Closed 41.31 Collection Agency
Amanda Simmons 5 -5 -88 Stolen 46.76 Collection Agency
Sheri Simmons 5 -9 -83 Account Closed 20.55 Collection Agency
Randall Simmons 8 -11 -87 NSF 6.39 Collection Agency
Randall Simmons 8 -22 -87 NSF 12.36 Collection Agency
Alan Taylor 5 -24 -88 NSF 3.31 Collection Agency
Robert Taylor 4 -23 -88 Account Closed 5.00 Collection Agency
Robert Taylor 4 -23 -88 Account Closed 13.82 Collection Agency
Ramona Tetter 3 -21 -88 Payment Stopped 41.45 Collection Agency
Karla Thiessen 9 -3 -87 Account Closed 21.68 Collection Agency
Robert Turnwall 11 -20 -87 Account Closed 15.00 Collection Agency
George Walker 7 -14 -87 Account Closed 4.29 Collection Agency
Bruce Wrolstad 4 -4 -87 Account Closed 22.31 Collection Agency
Charles Zacha 8 -11 -87 Account Closed 15.00 Collection Agency
Dana Haakenson 9 -15 -88 NSF 120.29 Police
Joe Mulville 7 -18 -87 NSF 10.69 Collection Agency
Pamela Loyd 2 -13 -87 Account Closed 9.52 Collection Agency
Charles Lewis 11 -12 -88 16.03 Collection Agency
AAA Water Control 3 -17 -88 6.00 Collection Agency
Harriette Anderson 3 -17 -88 19.71 Collection Agency
Kenneth Anderson 3 -17 -88 15.73 Collection Agency
Mike Andrewjeski 3 -17 -88 19.20 Collection Agency
Richard Arco 3 -17 -88 15.00 Collection Agency
John Banduren 3 -17 -88 10.47 Collection Agency
Cindy Batta 3 -17 -88 13.00 Collection Agency
Micheal Belcourt 8 -30 -88 13.23 Collection Agency
Clayton Blacker 3 -17 -88 6.24 Collection Agency
Clayton Blacker 3 -17 -88 17.35 Collection Agency
Timothy Blum 3 -17 -88 6.78 Collection Agency
Douglas Brisker 8 -18 -88 13.05 Collection Agency
Dana Broeffle 6 -6 -88 8.66 Collection Agency
Todd Brown 3 -18 -88 9.26 Collection Agency
JeriAnn Cullen 3 -18 -88 7.00 Collection Agency
Patricia Dauphinais 3 -18 -88 8.99 Collection Agency
Steve Deluca 3 -18 -88 10.91 Collection Agency
Stephanie Devane 3 -18 -88 12.98 Collection Agency
Stephanie Devane 3 -18 -88 12.98 Collection Agency
Patricia Ecker 3 -18 -88 8.07 Collection Agency
Pamela Elletson 3 -18 -88 11.40 Collection Agency
Troy Flynn 3 -18 -88 6.13 Collection Agency
Angela Ford 8 -18 -88 12.72 Collection Agency
Melvin Fossland 3 -18 -88 14.13 Collection Agency
Terry Goodwin 3 -18 -88 12.21 Collection Agency
Guy Acree 3 -17 -88 6.50 Collection Agency
Joseph Hale 3 -16 -88 14.21 Collection Agency
Patricia Hanson 3 -16 -88 10.03 Collection Agency
Steve Hanson 3 -16 -88 5.41 Collection Agency
Howard Hegland 3 -16 -88 9.31 Collection Agency
Howard Hegland 3 -16 -88 12.99 Collection Agency
Noel Hill 3 -16 -88 57.89 Collection Agency
Noel Hill 3 -16 -88 17.52 Collection Agency
Noel Hill 3 -16 -88 10.74 Collection Agency
Noel Hill 3 -16 -88 26.30 Collection Agency
Donna Honeycut 3 -16 -88 5.41 Collection Agency
Douglas Iverson 3 -16 -88 15.28 Collection Agency
John Jacobs 3 -16 -88 10.13 Collection Agency
John Jacobs 3 -16 -88 7.00 Collection Agency
Mary Jesser 3 -16 -88 5.74 Collection Agency
Kevin Johnson 3 -16 -80 9.87 Collection Agency
David Kennedy 3 -16 -88 7.00 Collection Agency
Christi LaFrance 3 -16 -88 13.74 Collection Agency
Krista Lahr 3 -16 -88 15.00 Collection Agency
Kathy arson - -
Y 3 16 88 10.67 Collection Agency
Sheri Larson 3 -16 -88 15.67 Collection Agency
John Freeman Lawyer 3 -18 -88 8.07 Collection Agency
Gregory Lockren 3 -16 -88 16.00 Collection Agency
Wendy Longen 3 -16 -88 11.50 Collection Agency
Pamela Loyd 3 -16 -88 9.52 Collection Agency
Julie Lundeen 3 -16 -88 7.97 Collection Agency
Kevin McClure 3 -16 -88 12.24 Collection Agency
Debra Miceli 3 -16 -88 18.54 Collection Agency
Sherri Minauskas 3 -16 -88 10.30 Collection Agency
Teresa Monahan 3 -16 -88 5.41 Collection Agency
Rita Mulloy 3 -16 -88 5.32 Collection Agency
Joe Mulville 3 -16 -88 10.69 Collection Agency
Lois Newman 3 -18 -88 6.17 Collection Agency
Allan Nordin 3 -18 -88 6.50 Collection Agency
Larry Olson 3 -18 -88 13.20 Collection Agency
Steve Olson 6 -6 -88 30.36 Collection Agency
Jim Peterson 3 -18 -88 5.07 Collection Agency
Micheal Richberg 3 -18 -88 9.10 Collection Agency
9 Y
Micheal Richberg 3 -18 -88 12.30 Collection Agency
Micheal Richberg 3 -18 -88 8.66 Collection Agency
Kelly Schultz 3 -17 -88 12.47 Collection Agency
Debra Sears 3 -17 -88 7.40 Collection Agency
Michael Slaughter 3 -17 -88 5.91 Collection Agency
Joy Somdalen 3 -17 -88 12.13 Collection Agency
James Spires 3 -17 -88 11.61 Collection Agency
Allan Svensson 3 -17 -88 10.41 Collection Agency
Ken Taylor 3 -17 -88 6.50 Collection Agency
Richard Walter 3 -17 -88 5.91 Collection Agency
Craig Weast 3 -17 -88 9.15 Collection Agency
Craig Weast 3 -17 -88 10.13 Collection Agency
Craig Weast 3 -17 -88 6.50 Collection Agency
Jeffrey east - -
Y 3 17 88 10.83 Collection Agency
9 Y
Terry Wolley 3 -17 -88 7.06 Collection Agency
Clarence Woods 3 -17 -88 7.60 Collection Agency
Thomas Wurawitz 3 -17 -88 13.00 Collection Agency
Ualores Yanta 3 -17 -88 12.09 Collection Agency
James Zahn 3 -17 -88 11.66 Collection Agency
Mary Beth Zantek 3 -17 -88 10.46 Collection Agency
Miscellaneous Accounts 17.40
MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE TOTALS: 4,809.31
GENERAL FUND:
Jody Schmaedeka 2 -23 -88 NSF 10.00 Collection Agency
Patrick Carver 8 -15 -88 NSF 7.42 Collection Agency
Patrick Carver 8 -17 -88 NSF 14.84 Collection Agency
Coon Rapids Electric 3 -30 -87 NSF 55.50 Collection Agency
Douglas Thompson 2 -15 -88 Account Closed 17.00 Collection Agency
GENERAL FUND TOTALS: 104.76
TOTAL ALL HiZ S: 4,914.07
--------------------------
- ------------------------------
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion r
fo the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon
vote
being taken thereon the f
voted in favor thereof: g following
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY F ��j�
O BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date - - �1� , ZL
Agenda Item Number Ci
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACOUNTS
RECEIVABLES
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
EXPLANATION
We have been unable to collect the receivables shown on the attached resolution
which were invoiced to customers in 1986,1987, and 1988. The resolution also
shows the purpose of the invoice. With the exception of the Minnegasco invoice,
all of the delinqent receivables have been turned over to our outside collection
agency. They have been unable to collect. The Minnegasco invoice was disputed by
Minnegasco because of alledged incorrect information provided by the City in the
location of a sewer line.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that these receivables be deemed to be uncollectible and
written -off.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
Authorize the write -off of the receivables by adopting the attached resolution.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO WRITE -OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES
-----------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported the following accounts
receivables are uncollectible.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to authorize the City Manager to write -off from the City's
records as uncollectible the following accounts receivables:
INVOICE NO. DATE DUE FROM PURPOSE AMOUNT
----- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
5779 2 -26 -86 Bernard M. McDonough Boulevard Tree $ 73.50
6543 9 -28 -87 Minnegasco Repair Sewer Line 868.93
6671 12 -11 -87 Ryan Grading Meter Rental 183.78
6739 3 -29 -88 Thomas L. Gervais Repair hydrant 190.81
6776 7 -14 -88 Theresa Maloney Repair Curb Stop 40.00
Total $1,357.02
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 18 O
Agenda Item Numbe
(IRSDESCS) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE ON LOANS FROM THE INVESTMENT
TRUST FUND TO OTHER FUNDS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
In the past, the City has issued Temporary Improvement Master Notes,
• and sold them to its Investment Trust Fund, to temporarily finance
Special Assessment improvements which are later permanently financed by
the sale of long -term improvement bonds. The interest rate on these
loans was last adjusted in May 1982 by Resolution 82 -96 which set it at
12 %. Economic conditions have changed so as to cause an overall
reduction in interest rates since then. The proposed rate of 10% is
sufficient to more than cover the lost interest from investing these
funds, while not overburdening the construction projects in the Special
Assessnment Fund.
•
lad
(IRESTIN)
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE ON LOANS FROM
THE INVESTMENT TRUST FUND TO OTHER FUNDS OF THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
-------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Brooklyn Center did on
May 24, 1982, adopt Resolution No. 82 -96 which established an annual
interest rate of 12% to be charged on loans made by the Investment Trust
Fund to other City funds; and
WHEREAS, because of current economic conditions the interest rate
of 12% is excessive; and
WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 89 -253 on December
18, 1989 which established an interest rate of 8% on a loan to be made by
the Investment Trust Fund to the Economic Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an annual interest
rate of 10% is sufficient and equitable:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the annual rate of interest to be charged
by the Investment Trust Fund on loans to other City funds, except the
Economic Development Authority, be set at 10% effective January,l, 1990.
ate 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 4 90
Agenda Item Number __Z
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A SECURITY AGREEMENT FOR SAFEKEEPING OF CITY INVESTMENTS
DEPART�APPROV AL:
W,
Signature - title Birectot OF
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The City's investments are presently held in a safekeeping account with Marquette
Bank Minneapolis. The investment porfolio consists of investments in U.S. Obligations,
U.S. Government Agencies, Bankers' Acceptances, and Commercial Paper. The City's
• independent auditor, in the annual management letter, has expressed concern that the
investments are unregistered (not in the City's name) and are held in the same
institution that the investments are purchased from, which is Marquette Minneapolis.
The City's investment practices have been the same for many years, that is to keep
all investments that are purchased in a safekeeping account in the City's name. The
auditors bring to our attention that, under guidelines established by the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB), investments.are placed into three classifications
of credit risk. Presently, the investments for the City are classified in the lowest
category. The reason for this low classification is not because of the quality of
the investments purchased, but because the investments are actually in the name of
Marquette Minneapolis and that the City of Brooklyn Center is the nominee (on records
of Marquette Minneapolis Safekeeping Department). In the event that Marquette Minneapolis
would no longer be able to continue business (i.e. go bankrupt), the assets of the
City may be claimed by other creditors. To avoid this credit risk, the investments
must be delivered to a third party safekeeping or trust department. This can be
accomplished by entering into an agreement with a third party bank that is not
selling the securities to the City or a Trust Company that is independent of the
broker /dealer from whom the purchase is made.
The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) adopted this standard in 1986 in
response to the collapse of ESM Government Securities, Inc. in 1985. Cities, states,
banks, and businesses lost hundreds of millions of dollars when they thought that
they were purchasing U.S. Treasury securities and repurchase agreements.
• I have requested proposals from First Trust Center, St. Paul and Marquette Bank
Minneapolis. Both institutions charge for the service based on the number of trans-
actions and the type of investment purchased. Both institutions were given a copy of
the City's investment portfolio and estimated annual transactions. Both institutions
have submitted proposals, based on the information supplied to them.
The following proposals were received:
1st Trust Marquette
--- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
Administration $8,216 $600
Safekeeping $465 $372
Transactions $1,080 $1,743
Cash Management $1,250 $0
Reporting $600 $0
Total $11,611 $2,715
- - - - - -- - - - - - --
------- - - - - - --
If either proposal is accepted, it will be an additional cost to the City. We are
currently not charged for safekeeping services. The effect on staff, by entering
into this agreement to place investments in a third party depository, will require
additional staff time to coordinate the processing of transactions. It is anticipated
that this will require minimal effort, but it must be recognized that another step
will be placed in conducting all investment activity.
• STAFF - RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council decides that this extra protection is necessary, Staff recommends
that the City enter into a custodial agreement with either First Trust Center, St. Paul
or Marquette Bank Minneapolis to provide investment portfolio custody services.
At this writing, Staff has unanswered questions about Marquette's proposal, so Staff
will be prepared to make a recommendation on Monday night.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
Staff will recommend specific action on Monday night.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date __y c /0
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTIONS AWARDING INSURANCE CONTRACTS
*.f*.**ft.t � �* � f�#t**#**t...*t*#*t**t#*#*f#* # * * * * *.. # * * # *ft. * # # ..... * �. *
DEPARTM ' ENT APPROVA
Signature - title rec or o
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below/attached-
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
I have attached three resolutions which, if adopted by the City Council, would award
insurance contracts for various types of insurance coverages for the calendar year
1990. I will, in the following paragraphs, review the insurance contract to be
awarded for each t
I ' I • yP e of insurance.
Boiler and Machinery Insurance Contract:
Boiler and machinery insurance coverage is a very specialized coverage and is written
by few companies. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company is one
of the best. We have carried coverage with them for many years and have always
been given excellent service and prompt payment of claims. The City's insurance
agent and I have negotiated a renewal for 1990 at the 1989 rates.
Liquor Liability Insurance Contract:
Very few companies are willing to write liquor liability insurance coverage. In
the past few years, several companies who did write liquor liability have declared
bankruptcy. We have carried this insurance with Transcontinental Insurance Compan
P Y
for several years and have had good experience with them. We did solicit other
and did r
proposals eceive proposals from two other insurance companies. As shown
in the resolution awarding the contract , Transcontinental submitted the lowest
premium proposal. The 1990 as remium quoted at the same rate as that of 1989.
P
Workers' Compensation Insurance Contract:
-----------------------------------------
LMCIT is one of the few insurers writing workers' compensation coverage for Minnesota
cities. In past years, the City Council has committed to support the LMCIT insuranace
programs. Both our insurance consultant and '
insurance ent
a recommend staying
� 9
• with the LMCIT workers' compensation insurance program. p p gam. The quoted rate has increased
considerably from last year. The reason for the increase is because of unfavorable
experience in general for workers' compensation benefits paid and specifically
the City's experience. Our risk consultant and I considered going to a retrospective
plan for 1990 which would have, in retrospect, based our final premium cost on
only the City's experience. Considering our recent loss experience, we felt that
• this approach was too much of a gamble. We could have saved premium if we had
a good experience year, but could have paid up to an additional $100,00 in premium
if we had a very bad experience year.
I have attached the recommendations and quotations prepared by our risk management
consultant to each of the resolutions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
--------------------
The staff recommends that the insurance contracts be awarded as presented in the
resolutions.
SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
--------------------------------------------
Authorize awarding the insurance contracts by adopting the attached resolutions.
/� F
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AWARDING BOILER AND MACHINERY INSURANCE CONTRACT
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and the City's Insurance Agent have
negotiated an annual renewal premium for the City's boiler and machinery insurance
coverage and it is as follows:
The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Insurance Company
--------------------------------------------------------
Boiler and Machinery $2,162
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to accept the negotiated insurance renewal and award the contract
as stated; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom,
Inc. (BHK &R) Agency be designated as the agent of record for said insurance
coverage.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AWARDING LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT
-------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and the City's Insurance Agent have
requested proposals for the City's liquor liability insurance coverage; and
WHEREAS, proposals were received as follows:
Rate Per Estimated
Company $100 of Sales Annual Premium
-------------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - --
St. Paul Surplus 0.8838 $ 19,444
Blackburn, Nicol 0.9010 19,827
Transcontinental Ins. Co. 0.8100 17,820
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to accept the proposal of Transcontinental Insurance Company and
award it the insurance contract for the City's liquor liability insurance coverage
to be as follows:
Liquor Liability (Off -Sale)
$1,000,000 BI each person
$1,000,000 BI each occurrence
$1,000,000 PD each occurrence
$1,000,000 Loss of means of support each person
$1,000,000 Loss of means of support each occurence
$1,000,000 Aggregate
Estimated sales of $2,200,000
Estimated Annual Premium $17,820
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom,
Inc. (BHK &R) Agency be designated as the agent of record for said insurance
coverage.
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.
28- Dec -89 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Liquor Liability Quotation:
Policy Term: 01 -01 -90/91
1989 1990 ;Alternate Quotes:
Carrier: Transcontinental Ins. Co.;Transcontinental Ins. Co.;St. Paul Surplus;Blackburn, Nicol
Location: Estimate Rate: Premium: Estimate Rate: Premium: ; Rate: Premium: ; Rate: Premium:
Receipts: Receipts: ;
Humboldt #1: 800,000 0.81 6,480 ; 800,000 0.81 6,480 ;0.8838 7,070 0.901 7,208
Boulevard #2: 700,000 0.81 5,670 700,000 0.81 5,670 ;0.8838 6,187 ; 0.901 6,307
Northbrook #3: 700,000 0.81 5,670 ; 700,000 0.81 5,670 ;0.8838 6,187 ; 0.901 6,307
Golf Course: 10,000 6.83 2,737 ;
(Short Term: 04- 01- 89 /10- 31- 89(deposit);
------------------------- :_------------------ - - -- -- ---------- - - - - -- ---------------
Total: 2,210,000 20,557 '? 200,000 17,820 19,444 19,827
1.
Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc.
1 �h
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AWARDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE CONTRACT
-------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and the City's Insurance Agent have
negotiated an annual renewal premium for the City's workers' compensation insurance
coverage and it is as follows:
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT)
-----------------------------------------------
Workers' Compensation $186,130
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to accept the negotiated insurance renewal and award the contract
as stated; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Brandow Howard Kohler & Rosenbloom,
Inc. (BHK &R) Agency be designated as the agent of record for said insurance
coverage.
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.
Risk Management
Consultants
Northwest Business Campus
American Risk Services, Inc. 3033 Campus Drive
Suite A 418
Minneapolis, MN 55441 -2620
January 4, 1989 (612) 559 -7300
Mr. Paul W. Holmlund
Director of Finance
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Worker's Compensation Insurance Renewal
Dear Paul:
For your information I am enclosing:
M A quotation showing the 1988/89, 1989/90 and proposed 1990/91
Payrolls, Rates and Premiums, plus the Assigned Risk Rate and
Premium for comparison.
6 An analysis of the proposed Retrospective Rating Program together
with the Guaranteed Cost Premiums including the premium cost at
various loss levels.
• An analysis of your Worker's Compensation Claims from 1981 to -date.
a Our Loss Projection Worksheet for the City for 1990.
0 A Graph showing the effect of the losses on the premiums under the
Retrospective Rating Program and under the Guaranteed Cost Program.
i An analysis of how the City's premiums would have been affected if
the new Retrospective Rating Program had been in effect for the
years from 1983 to -date (using the present date premiums).
• A premium computation for the Year 1 -1 -89/90 had the Retrospective
Rating Program been in effect that year, showing the savings the
City would have enjoyed over the Guaranteed Cost Program.
® A premium computation for the Year 1 -1 -90/91 using the 1989 Claims
valued as of November 17, 1989, the new Estimated Annual Premium
again showing the savings that the City would enjoy with the new
Retrospective Rating Plan being in place.
A American Risk Services Inc.
Mr. Paul W. Holmlund January 4, 1990
City of Brooklyn Center Page Two
Based on this information, it is our recommendation that the City not accept
the Retrospective Rating Program offered under the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust Worker's Compensation Program. It is my opinion that with
losses projected at $71,167, the retrospective savings would only be $13,249
or too small to chance the adverse premium development.
71Y
John R. Simacek
Vice President
105:32
26-Dec-89 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
INSUREI;; LEAGUE OF MN. CITIES INSURANCE TRUS'I�
REGARDING: WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE
POLICY TERM: January 1, 1990/91
Assigned Risk: ;
CLASSIFICATIONS: CODE: ; PAYROLL RATE PREMIUM ;; PAYROLL RATE PREMIUM ;; PAYROLL RATE PREMIUM ;; RATE PREMIUM
1988/89 88/89 1988/89 ;; 1989/90 89/90 1989/90 ; 1990/91 90/91 1990/91 ;; 89/90 1989/90
I,
------------------------------------------ ;--------------------------- ;;--------------------------- '------------------- --- - - - -,I _ ____
Street or Road Construction 5506 ; 343,000 8.33 28,572 ;; 325,000 8.10 26,325 ;; 320,000 9.32 29,824 ;; 15.95 51,040
Waterworks 7520 ; 132,000 3.11 4,105 141,000 3.23 4,554 ;; 180,000 3.71 6,678 ;; 5.50 9,900
Firefighters (Volunteer) 7708 ; 31,230 77.89 24,325 ;; 0 ;; 31,230 89.27 27,879 ;; 87.71 27,392
Policemen 7720 ;1,014,000 5.99 60,739 ;;1,128,000 4.54 51,211 ;;1,096,000 5.22 57,211 ;; 7.65 83,844
Store Risk, Retail (Off Sale Liquor) 8017 ; 208,000 1.69 3,515 ;; 230,000 2.46 5,658 ;; 226,000 2.83 6,396 ;; 2.49 5,627
City Shop and Yard 8227 ; 97,000 4.82 4,675 ;; 106,000 3.88 4,113 ;; 105,000 4.46 4,683 ;; 6.14 6,447 ;
Clerical Office 8810 ; 814,000 0.36 2,930 ;; 672,000 0.39 2,621 ;; 919,000 0.45 4,136 ;; 0.47 4,319 ;
Building Operations 9015 ; 150,000 5.86 8,790 ;; 389,000 9.95 36,706 ;; 409,000 11.44 46,790 ;; 9.79 40,041
City Ice Arena 9016 ; 0 ;; 0 ;; 0 ;; 5.21 0
Parks 9102 ; 771,000 4.13 31,842 ; 699,000 5.02 35,090 ;; 659,000 5.77 38,024 6.55 43,165
Street Cleaning /Snow Removal 9402 ; 34,000 9.08 3,087 ;; 74,000 6.08 4,499 ;; 74,000 6.99 5,173 ;; 16.03 11,862
Municipal Employees 9410 ; 493,000 5.88 28,988 ;; 602,000 2.91 17,518 ;; 626,000 3.35 20,971 ;; 6.90 43,194 ;
Club - Country /golf 9060 ; ;; 0 ;; 78,000 2.66 2,075 ;; 3.87 3,019 ;
Elected or Appointed Officials 9411 ; ;; 18,200 2.91 530 ;; 23,040 3.35 772 ; 6.90 1,590
I
_ - -8244 " 4- 715 ---- - - - - -- -6144 " ------------- --- -
Total ll Payro ;4,056,000 201,570 ;;4,384,200 190,824 ;;4,715,,040 040 250,611 ;; 331,440 '
------------------------------ - - - - -- 4444 -- ' -- ------------- - - - - -- 4444 -- I I I
" --------------- - - - - -- 4444 -- I i _ __ _
I I ---- , I
Experience Modifier 0.77 155,209 ;; 0.79 150,751 ;; 0.83 208,007 ;; 0.83 275,095
.I II
------------------- '--------------- - - - - -- 4444 -- " --------------------- - - - - -- " ------------------- - - - - - -- " ----------------
Premium Discount ; (15,595);; (15,064);; (21,878);; 0.00% 0
I II II
--------------- --------------------------- '--------------- 00 - - - - -- 4444 0 -- " ------------ 0--- - 00% - - - -- 4444 0 -- " -------------- - - - - -- 4444 -- " ------- - - - - --
L.M.C.I.T. Discount: ; 0.7. ;; . ;; 0.00% 0 ;; 90.007. 247,585 ;
----- - - - - -- " ----------------
I
----------------- ------------------------- '---------------- - - - - -- 4444 -I
------------------------- ;�--- - - - - -- 4444 --
TOTAL ANNUAL PREMIUM ; 139,614 ;, 135,687 186,129 ;; 247,585
prepared by: American Risk Services
04- Jan -90 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WCIRKERS f C?MFENSATION RETROiSFEC-TI RATII`dG PROGRAM:
L.M.C.I.T. Program
January 1, 1990/91
RETRO: GUARANTEED COST:
Standard Premium: 208,008
Discounted premium: 186,130 186,130
Basic Factor: 0.470
Loss Conversion Factor: 1.200
Tax Multiplier: 1.000
Minimum Prem. Factor: 470
Maximum Prem. Factor: 1300
Basic Premium: 87,481
Minimum Premium: 87,481 186,130
Maximum Premium: 270,410 186,130
RETRO PLAN LOSS RANGES:
Retro Loss Loss Indicated
Premium at Ratio: Content: Retro:
--------------------------------------------------------
Minimum 0.000 0 87,481
Subject 44.170 82,207 186,130
Maximum 69.170 152,441 270,410
Guaranteed Cost 77.300 143,872 186,130
WORKERS COMPENSATION COSTS AT VARIOUS LOSS LEVELS
Loss Ratios: Loss Amount Retro Guaranteed
Premium: Cost:
00 0 87,481 186,130
50 11,794 101,634 186,130
110 23,588 115,787 186,130
150 35,382 129,940 186,130
200 47,176 144,092 186,130
2S0 S8, 970 158,245 186,130
300 70,764 172,398 186,130
350 82,558 186,551 186,130
400 94,352 200,704 186,130
4S0 106,146 214,856 186,130
S00 117,941 229,010 186,130
SS0 129,735 243,163 186,130
600 141,529 257,316 186,130
650 153,323 270,410 186,130
700 165,117 270,410 186,130
7S0 176,911 270,410 186,130
800 188,705 270,410 186,130
850 200,499 270,410 186,130
900 212,293 270410 186,130
950 2 24,087 270, 186,130
1000 235,881 270,410 186,130
Prepared by AMERICAN RISK SERVICES
17 -1 ec - A 9 7 M' OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Workers' Coapprj=;tiort ArlilvEn
rear: 1 Fayrolls: Premiums: 1 Paid Claims: 1 F.e=Prvp-.: E FAnte: :C.W.P. Total: i ;No. Daic rczr,taP Lon Valu:,tion; Eperi�_nre:
1 ME-dical No. IndErini ty No. N N j, 'Loct Tima� pd tc Ratio I 1-fe
I 11ral f I P1
----------- ----------- - - - -
---------- --------- ----------------- --------- ; ---------- ---------
----------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ------ -------------------
1-145) 50 4,- - 4, :011 1 1.35, 1 10. 20_. 2(; I G 1 1(1,8:.2. S 45, "1 i 1 1 •21 31 . - 4 i 'E'. c'J"; I 1' -59
6 5 1" ri 1:31, 1 21.46 -9. 12 2"A-13, 10 1 26, 6 1 8. 10 1 '773. 7 ;o 1 5, 21 51, 4 1 i
�4. J. 9 J% I I - 1' 9 0.77
(I fi 1 32 .09 5 5 1 9, 14;x. 33 15 E,_41i.7j E fl, n, [1 1 i 4= i
-;7 1 y,8 `1 1 E•, 8 15,35 G1 1 4, 4 1
2(l 9;. 990 i 8,110 1 17 1 11, 1 - '3. 0 42 I'. Oil" 0
I - I - K ;; ,1 3, 133,314 1 131,3`0 11 17, . 02 1 1 10,2_4. 0 fi (i 1 IR 1 - 17, 7" - 1, - - i' - :
fif , fill:
1 -84'!" 5,425,141 94, - 445 1 +,9'34. 15 1 14, 4 1 0.0 1 Lc, 20 0 i 18,717.78
D 194 1 1 1 1 4,%; 11 - 17 -
I -R !1 ',';11 , 539 Ell, 5H 1� 37 ;,1 f _.1.52 1v 6 1 5 �_'. - if , 7 0, f1f 5, VT r i I ri 8 2 1._ 171 i i f I fift, ffi% 171 . 11 - I 0,7
? 7, '1 5 B - 1, A 0 - 4. 5 ; 0 4 ,978. 31 J 5
__5 5 1 602, 4e 18 - '4, C C J.
4
i
E 1 2.•361,1 1 10, 417.4c 2 1 -7, l 11, 6 11 1 h 7, E 0 4. 1 51", f! E, - 'fl , I 3 < 1, E 1, 413 ;11_17 •
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nr-te- ISS'S, IKE, I3,j7, 1586 Pa•roll are Esiu.,;_tEd
11-8, 1:8 1986 Premiums Are estimated
FreparEd by American Ricl Services, inc.
1
00 -90
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
LOSS PROJECTION WORKSHEET
Incurred Ultimate
olicy Year Loss X L.D.F. = Loss / Payroll = Loss Rate
Per $100
84 18,718 1.062 19,878 3,429,141 0.58
85 27,793 1.134 31,518 3,133.314 1.01
86 11,133 1.225 13,638 3,289,979 0
87 1335
17,502 . 23,366 3.390,000 0.6� �
88 75,295 1.505 113,320 4,056.000 2.77 °
29 66.253 1.895 125,550 4,384,200 2.36
- - - - - -- 327.270 / - - -- 1.682,634 _ ---------- -- m
Standard Deviation: 0.8i
Coefficient of Variation: 30.39%
90 90
ELR X Projected Payroll Exposure = Projected Loss
1.509 X $4,715,040 = $71.167
I
A
There is a 68 percent probability that losses will be between $30,131 and $112,2n_ 3
m
There is a 95 percent probability that losses will be between {$10,905) and $153,22- n
There is a 1.5 percent probability that losses will exceed $194.276 u,
m
w
Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc.
1.1.11 " d I.J.] Q e."l-
� I ,
"i 3 4 I I rjJ ri P.
L
. ...... . .....
. . ..... ....
. . ........
lZ
............... -----------
YH
'I and ul
04- Tan -90 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Analysis of Retrospective Rating Program:
Basis:
Standard Premium: 208,008
Discounted Premium: 186,130
Basic Premium: 87,481
Loss Conversion Premium: 1.20
Year: Claims: Retro Savings From
Prem.: Guaranteed Cost:
Projected '90 55,028 153,515 (32,615)
1989 66,253 166,985 (19,145)
1988 75,295 177,835 (8,295)
1987 17,502 108,483 {77,647}
1986 11,133 100,841 (85,289)
1985 27,793 1- (6S,297)
1984 18,718 109,943 (76,187)
1983 103,822 212,067 25,937
Prepared by: American Risk Services, Inc.
=17 - D ec-39 GIT'Y O B r_ KL N GEN ! t_'R
January 1, 1 889190
Claims Valued as of: 11 -17 -89
...
RETRO: Gtlr'3tR NTEED GOS t :
Standard Premium 150.75-? 135 ; 6 L 8
Discoursed Premium
R Facto 00 Ho
M- ini Premium Fact 0. ,>.riil
Ma ximum Prennium i actor 1
Ex cess Loss Prem_ Factor
Loss Conversion Factor 1.100
i ax o;tiplier 1.000
Ba- sic: Premium 4 7 . : q 1
E=ess Loss :em_
Minkne um Premium 47.4r-1 13 G 8 8
Maximi um Premium 18 C' �0.,
RET RO M IC4 1". 3ci AT
Lasses 6 Vaiued: s1 17 -r89
Converted lo sses I ') -
Basic P u7 aql 1
Metro Premium, 1 - � 13 E O
(fr ]l tSu3t: slt+?ed
Prepared by: Ainerican Risks Ser�li es, In c.
7- nec - gg CITY OF Bi 0 _k_ !1CLYN CENTER
January 1, 1991 91
�.isirnr� 199 ,isms �ra.nne as x::11- i ? -99
(Sample as New Retro Plan-)
R I �J_ GUARANTEED GO — 1:
Standard Premium ii��$ 1 r r_ 1 0
"Hs --nte d 1
Basra- Factor f
I'+slininn 93 Pr emium Factor
1 a =irnum Premium Factor
Excess Loss Prem_ Factor
Loss Conversion Factor
T ax fluftir-lner
Basic Premium 7
ts..4' 1
Exc - ess Loss Frem
Minimum Premium 8 4,-,
REETRO FtAT:N 2i GOMPg—T zTI= _1:
Year 1- 1- 9i>{1 -1 -91
Liss °Sy ,.j v_ n E -1 { — 8 9
C onverted losses 7 - -:4 . 4
t
(fro it plaran3te --ed cost)
Prepared ley: American Fisk Oervices, Inc.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/8/90
Agenda Item Numbe /
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement between the City of
Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Personnel Coordinator
Signature title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The City's 1990 budget has $5,000 allocated for mediation services (Unit 52 - Social Services). To
• date, the City has not yet entered into a 1990 contract with North Hennepin Mediation Project
(NHMP) for provision of mediation services. Attached is a contract and resolution authorizing the
City to do so. The contract is virtually identical to the terms of the 1989 contract.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Pass a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager
to Enter into an Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin Mediation Project.
•
e
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER AND NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has allocated
$5,000 in the 1990 budget, Unit 52, Object 4420 for mediation
services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin
Mediation Project are desirous of renewing an agreement for the
provision of services from the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center:
1. The Council has reviewed the Agreement Between the
City of Brooklyn Center and North Hennepin
Mediation Project and finds that the execution of
the agreement is in the best interest of the City
of Brooklyn Center.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and
directed to execute the agreement on behalf of the
City.
3. The City Manager is directed to transmit an
executed copy of the agreement to North Hennepin
Mediation Project.
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.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
and
NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT
This Agreement is made the 8th day of January, 1990, between the City of
Brooklyn Center, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the North Hennepin
Mediation Project, hereinafter referred to as NHMP;
In consideration of the covenants set forth herein, the City and NHMP agree as
follows:
Services Provided. NHMP, within its financial resources, agrees to provide
its full range of professional and volunteer services to the residents of the
City including, without limitation, the following:
a. Mediation services for citizens - City disputes resulting from
conflicts in enforcement of City ordinances, rules, and regulations.
b. Mediation services for resolving ordinance and nonordinance related
neighborhood disputes.
C. Mediation services for resolving juvenile justice system disputes,
provided that the records and identity of the juvenile shall be
provided to NHMP pursuant to Minn. Stat. 260.161.
d. Such other services of a similar nature as may be assigned from time
to time by the City Manager of the City and as agreed to by the NHMP
Board of Directors.
Limitations and Report NHMP shall not compete with the City or other Social
Agencies by providing services which overlap with services provided by the
City or other Social Agencies unless such services can be provided more
efficiently and effectively by NHMP. NHMP shall submit an annual report to
the City outlining the services provided to the City during the preceding
year.
Liabilities. The City shall not exercise control of the process, means, or
procedures used in providing services hereunder, shall provide no directive
to, and shall not interfere with NHMP or its employees or volunteers in the
performance of the services required by this contract. NHMP volunteers and
employees shall not be considered employees of the City and shall be under the
direct control of NHMP. NHMP agrees to indemnify the City and hold the City
harmless from any liability, claim, demand or action of any kind, including
legal expenses, arising out of NHMP activities, and NHMP shall carry a policy
of comprehensive general liability insurance, including contractual liability
insurance, in an amount approved by the City to cover this agreement. NHMP
shall provide certificates of insurance to the City with the signing of this
agreement. It is understood that this insurance requirement does not
constitute all of the insurance that may be necessary.
Duration. The services provided by NHMP hereunder shall commence on the
1st day of January, 1990, and continue until December 31, 1990. It is
understood between the parties that NHMP intends to continue to provide
similar services after expiration of this contract, as a volunteer
organization. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to mean that the
City shall renew this contract in the event that NHMP continues to provide
such services to the residents of the City of Brooklyn Center after expiration
of this contract.
Payment. The City agrees to pay the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000) Dollars for
the services provided hereunder, for the term of the contract. The sum of
$5,000 shall be the total obligation of the City under this contract and shall
be payable to NHMP as follows: $2,500 on January 22, 1990, and $2,500 on
July 23, 1990, in order to provide the services required hereunder. In the
event that NHMP fails to provide the services hereunder, discontinues its
operation, or otherwise breaches the contract in any material way, NHMP shall
refund to the City the amount determined by dividing the number of days
remaining under this contract by 365 days and expressing the quotient in
percentum and then multiplying the said percentum times the total contract
price. In the event the quality of services required by this contract is not
acceptable to the City, y, his agreement may be terminated.
Miscellaneous. In an effort to improve the quality of mediation services
provided by this agreement, the City and NHMP agree to exchange information
and ideas, maintain open communication, and respond to all disputes,
misunderstandings, and recommendations. The parties agree that this contract
is not assignable and that the contract shall become effective upon approval
by the NHMP Board of Directors and the execution thereof by the President and
Corporate Secretary, and upon the approval by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center and execution thereof by the Mayor and City Manager. The City
shall be a corporate member of the NHMP.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
date first above written.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Mayor
City Manager
NORTH HENNEPIN MEDIATION PROJECT
President
Corporate Secretary
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/8/90
e
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING
CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK SNOWPLOW AND BLOWER
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
MANAGER'S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION-
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
On December 18, 1989 the City Council approved specifications and authorized
advertising for bids for the furnishing of a new sidewalk snowplow and blower.
Bids were received and opened on Thursday, January 4, 1990. Followin g is the
City staff's analyses of these bids:
o The lowest bid received - from MacQueen Equipment Inc. in the amount of
$39,524.00 for a Trackless MT Loader with Vee -plow and snowblower fully
meets the specifications. The dealer has a unit in stock and can deliver
it in 10 to 15.days.
o The estimated cost for this unit, as reported to the City Council on
December 18, was $47,000.00.
Accordingly staff recommends that the low bid be accepted.
City Council Action Required
Adoption of the attached resolution.
r
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND
ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR SIDEWALK SNOWPLOW AND
BLOWER
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 89 -248, the following bids were
received and opened in response to the City's advertisement for bids:
Bidder Bid Amount Description of Unit Delivery
MacQueen Equipment Inc. $39,524.00 Trackless MT 10 -15 Days
Series V (new unit)
Aspen Equipment Co.
Base Bid $44,548.00 Bombadier BM -50 120 Days
Alternate Bid $40,759.00 Bombadier BM -50 60 Days
(used unit, 250 hrs.)
AND WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to fund the purchase of this
equipment by transferring funds from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund,
Account No. 2600 - MSA Fund Balance Expendable to the 1990 budget for Division
42 of the General Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. A transfer is the amount of $39,524.00 is hereby approved from the
Municipal State Aid Street Fund Account No. 2600 - MSA Fund Balance
Expendable to the General Fund.
2. The 1990 General Fund Budget is hereby amended as follows:
• increase the estimated revenues for transfer from
M.S.A. Construction Fund by ..... .....................$39,524.00
• increase the appropriation for Division 42, Street
Maintenance, Object No. 4553 by . .....................$39,524.00
3. The bid of MacQueen Equipment Inc. to furnish and deliver the
sidewalk snowplow and blower in accordance with the approved
specifications is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby
authorized and directed to enter into contract with said firm on
that basis.
RESOLUTION NO
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/8/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 - CONSTRUCTION OF WELL
NO. 10, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP DIRE TOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
In the study report completed by Black and Veatch, consulting engineers, in
August, 1989, it is recommended that the future improvements to the City's water
• supply system be made in four phases with Phase I to be completed in 1990 if
possible. Additional considerations have indicated that it will not be possible
to complete Phase I improvements in time to have them "on- line" for the summer
of 1990. However, if design of those improvements is initiated now, it should
be possible to have them "on- line" for the summer of 1991.
Phase I improvements as proposed in the report include the construction of one
additional well (i.e. - Well No. 10), some "well collection liners" and some
"distribution mains" at an estimated total cost of $1,650,00
Because proposed Phase I improvements included installation of a distribution
main on 69th Avenue from Dupont Avenue westerly to Oliver Avenue:, and because
staff prefers to defer that installation until it can be coordinated with future
roadway improvements, we request a review of that recommendation. After further
review, Black and Veatch now advises that Phase I distribution system
improvement can be terminated at Well No. 6 (located at 1208 69th Avenue No.)
without seriously affecting the impact of the other improvements included in
Phase I. Accordingly, the total cost estimate for Phase I improvements can be
reduced to $1,550,000 (i.e. - $950,000 for Well No. 10 plus $600,000 for water
main improvements).
In their report, Black and Veatch has estimated the impact of Phase I
improvements on water rates will be to increase rates from $0.46 per 1000
gallons to $0.53 per 1000 gallons.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/8/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 - CONSTRUCTION OF WELL
NO. 10, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
SY KNAPP DIREC OF PUBLIC WORKS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
In the study report completed by Black and Veatch, consulting engineers, in
• August, 1989, it is recommended that the future improvements to the City's water
supply system be made in four phases with Phase I to be completed in 1990 if
possible. Additional considerations have indicated that it will not be possible
to complete Phase I improvements in time to have them "on- line" for the summer
of 1990. However, if design of those improvements is initiated now, it should
be possible to have them "on- line" for the summer of 1991.
Phase I improvements as proposed in the report include the construction of one
additional well (i.e. - Well No. 10), some "well collection lines" and some
"distribution mains" at an estimated total cost of $1,650.00.
Because proposed Phase I improvements included installation of a distribution
main on 69th Avenue from Dupont Avenue westerly to Oliver Avenue, and because
staff prefers to defer that installation until it can be coordinated with future
roadway improvements, we request a review of that recommendation. After further
review, Black and Veatch now advises that Phase I distribution system
improvement can be terminated at Well No. 6 (located at 1208 69th Avenue No.)
without seriously affecting the impact of the other improvements included in
Phase I. Accordingly, the total cost estimate for Phase I improvements can be
reduced to $1,550.00 (i.e. - $950,000 for Well No. 10 plus $600,000 for water
main improvements).
In their report, Black and Veatch has estimated the impact of Phase I
improvements on water rates will be to increase rates from $0.46 per 1000
gallons to $0.53 per 1000 gallons.
•
• Following is a summary of the performance impacts for proposed Phase I
improvements:
Existing With Phase I
Item Facilities Improvements
Available Capacity, Max. Day 13.3 mgd 15.4 mgd
Available Capacity, Max. Hour 21.3 mgd 24.4 mgd
Water Demand Conditions 1990 -01
Max. Day with Normal Conditions Satisfied Satisfied
Max. Hour with Normal Conditions Not Satisfied Satisfied
Max. Day with Drought Conditions
and with Restrictions Satisfied Satisfied
Max. Hour with Drought Conditions
and with Restrictions Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
Max. Day with Drought Conditions
and without Restrictions Not Satisfied Satisfied
Max. Hour with Drought Conditions
and without Restrictions Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
It is recommended that the City engineering staff provide the engineering
services required for design and construction supervision of the Phase I water
main but that a consultant be employed to provide the engineering
services required for the design and construction supervision of proposed Well
No. 10.
• Because Black and Veatch is fully familiar with the City's needs and
requirements and because it is essential to employ a consultant who is fully
aware of the City's needs to assure optimal benefits from this proposed well, we
requested Black and Veatch to submit a proposal to furnish the needed services.
A copy of their proposal is attached.
Following is our current estimate of costs for Well No. 10:
Construction Contract Costs (as per Black and Veatch) ............ 731,500
Consulting Engineering Fees ............... .......................117,500
Staff Engineering, Legal, Financial Fees ......................... 51,000
Contingency ..................... ............................... 50.000
Estimated Total Project Cost $950,000
Staff review of proposal from Black and Veatch indicates that the scope of
services proposed fully serves the City's needs and that their proposed
compensation schedule is reasonable. Approval is recommended.
City Council Action Required
A resolution is provided for consideration by the Council.
r
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -02 -
CONSTRUCTION OF WELL NO. 10, ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT
FOR SERVICES
WHEREAS, a August, 1989, study report on water works facilities for the
City of Brooklyn Center recommends that an additional well be constructed to
satisfy the system needs as defined within that report; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has obtained a proposal from Black
and Veatch, consulting engineers and architects, to provide the professional
services required in connection with that project and has recommended acceptance
of that proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has estimated the total costs for
this improvement project as follows:
Construction Contract Costs $731,500
Consulting Engineering Fees 117,500
Staff Engineering, Legal & Financial Fees 51,000
Contingency (5 %) 50.000
Estimated Total Project Costs $950,000
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. that the proposed project will be designated as:
Water Supply Well No. 10
Improvement Project No. 1990 -02
2. that the proposal submitted by Black and Veatch, consulting
engineers and architects is hereby accepted. The Mayor and City
Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract
with said firm for professional services in accordance with that
proposal and the compensation schedules as detailed therein.
3. that all costs for this improvement shall be charged to the Public
Utility Fund.
RESOLUTION N0.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
AGREEMENT
FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, between City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (hereinafter
referred to as Owner) and Black & Veatch, Engineers- Architects (hereinafter
referred to as Engineer);
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner intends to provide a new water supply well (No. 10) and
expand the SCADA system (hereinafter referred to as the Project); and,
WHEREAS, Owner requires certain professional services in connection with
the Project (hereinafter referred to as the Services); and,
WHEREAS, Engineer is prepared to provide such Services;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - EFFECTIVE DATE
The effective date of this Agreement shall be
ARTICLE 2 - SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY ENGINEER
Engineer shall perform the Services described in Attachment A, Scope of
Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as part
of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3 - COMPENSATION
Owner shall pay Engineer in accordance with Attachment B, Compensation,
which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as part of this
Agreement.
112789 1
ARTICLE 4 - STANDARD OF CARE
Engineer shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, and diligence in
the performance of the Services as is ordinarily provided by a professional
engineer under similar circumstances and Engineer shall, at no cost to
Owner, re- perform services which fail to satisfy the foregoing standard of
care.
ARTICLE 5 - LIMITATIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY
Engineer shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, tech -
niques, sequences, procedures, or safety precautions and programs in
connection with the Project. In addition, Engineer shall not be
responsible for the failure of any contractor, subcontractor, vendor, or
other project participant to fulfill contractual or other responsibilities
to the Owner or to comply with federal, state, or local laws, ordinances,
regulations, rules, codes, orders, criteria, or standards.
ARTICLE 6 - OPINIONS OF COST AND SCHEDULE
Since Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment
or services furnished by others, or over contractors', subcontractors', or
vendors' methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or
market conditions, Engineer's cost estimates shall be made on the basis of
qualification and experience as a professional engineer.
Since Engineer has no control over the resources provided by others to
meet contract schedules, Engineer's forecast schedules shall be made on
the basis of qualification and experience as a professional engineer.
Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual
project costs will not vary from his cost estimates or that actual
schedules will not vary from his forecast schedules.
ARTICLE 7 - LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
7.1 General. Having considered the risks and potential liabilities that
may exist during the performance of the Services and in consideration of
the promises included herein, Owner and Engineer agree to allocate such
112789 2
liabilities in accordance with this Article 7. Words and phrases used in
this Article shall be interpreted in accordance with customary insurance
industry usage and practice.
7.2 Indemnification. Engineer shall defend and indemnify Owner from and
against legal liability for damages arising out of the performance of the
services for Owner where such liability is caused by the negligent act,
error, or omission of Engineer or any person or organization for whom
Engineer is legally liable.
7.3 Defense of Claims. In the event an action for damages is filed in
which negligence is alleged on the part of Owner and Engineer, Engineer
agrees to defend Owner. In the event Owner accepts Engineer's defense,
Owner agrees to indemnify and reimburse Engineer on a pro rata basis for
all expenses of defense and any judgment or amount paid by Engineer in
resolution of such claim. Such pro rata share shall be based upon a final
judicial determination of negligence or, in the absence of such determi-
nation, by mutual agreement.
7.4 Employee Claims. Engineer shall indemnify Owner against legal
liability for damages arising out of claims by Engineer's employees. Owner
shall indemnify Engineer against legal liability for damages arising out
of claims by Owner's employees.
7.5 Limitations of Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law,
Engineer shall not be liable to Owner for any special, indirect or con-
sequential damages, whether caused by Engineer's negligence, errors,
omissions, strict liability, breach of contract, breach of warranty or
other cause or causes.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Engineer's total liability to Owner
for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses or damages arising out
of or in any way related to the Project or this Agreement from any cause or
112789 3
causes including but not limited to Engineer's negligence, errors,
omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty shall
not exceed the minimum amounts required by Article 10 of this Agreement.
7.6 Other Project Indemnities. Indemnity provisions shall be incorporated
into all Project contractual arrangements entered into by Owner and shall
protect Owner and Engineer to the same extent.
7.7 Survival. Upon completion of all services, obligations and duties
provided for in this Agreement, or in the event of termination of this
Agreement for any reason, the terms and conditions of this Article shall
survive.
ARTICLE 8 - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Engineer undertakes performance of the Services as an independent con-
tractor and shall be wholly responsible for the methods of performance.
Owner shall have no right to supervise the methods used but Owner shall
have the right to observe such performance. Engineer shall work closely
with Owner in performing Services under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 9 - COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
In performance of the Services, Engineer will comply with applicable
regulatory requirements including federal, state, and local laws, rules,
regulations, orders, codes, criteria and standards. Engineer shall procure
the permits, certificates, and licenses necessary to allow Engineer to
perform the Services. Engineer shall not be responsible for procuring
permits, certificates, and licenses required for any construction unless
such responsibilities are specifically assigned to Engineer in Attach-
ment A, Scope of Services.
112789 4
ARTICLE 10 - INSURANCE
During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, Engineer shall
maintain the following insurance:
(1) General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than
$600,000 for each occurrence and not less than $600,000 in the aggre-
gate, and with property damage limits of not less than $600,000 for
each occurrence and not less than $600,000 in the aggregate.
(2) Automobile Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less
than $600,000 for each person and not less than $600,000 for each
accident and with property damage limits of not less than $600,000 for
each accident.
(3) Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory require-
ments and Employers' Liability Insurance with limits of not less than
$100,000 for each occurrence.
(4) Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than
$1,000,000 annual aggregate.
Engineer shall, upon request, furnish Owner certificates of insurance which
shall include a provision that such insurance shall not be cancelled
without at least thirty days written notice to Owner. All Project contrac-
tors shall be required to include Owner and Engineer as additional insureds
on their General Liability insurance policies.
ARTICLE 11 - OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
Owner shall be responsible for all matters described in Attachment C,
Owner's Responsibilities, which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as part of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 12 - REUSE OF DOCUMENTS
All documents, including drawings, specifications. and computer software,
prepared by Engineer pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service
in respect to this Project. They are not intended or represented to be
suitable for reuse by Owner or others on extensions of this Project or on
112789 5
any other project. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation
by Engineer for the specific purpose intended will be at Owner's sole risk
and without liability or legal exposure to Engineer; and Owner shall indem-
nify and hold harmless Engineer against all claims, damages, losses, and
expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting from such
reuse. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle Engineer to
further compensation at rates to be agreed upon by Owner and Engineer.
ARTICLE 13 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
The obligation to continue Services under this Agreement may be terminated
by either party upon seven days' written notice in the event of substantial
failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof
through no fault of the terminating party.
Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend perform-
ance thereof for Owner's convenience upon written notice to Engineer, and
Engineer shall terminate or suspend performance of Services on a schedule
acceptable to Owner. In the event of termination or suspension for Owner's
convenience, Owner shall pay Engineer for all Services performed and termi-
nation or suspension expenses. Upon restart of a suspended project
equitable adjustment shall be made to Engineer's compensation.
ARTICLE 14 - NONDISCLOSURE OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
Engineer shall consider all information provided by Owner to be proprietary
unless such information is available from public sources. Engineer shall
not publish or disclose proprietary information for any purpose other than
the performance of the Services without the prior written authorization of
Owner or in response to legal process.
112789 6
ARTICLE 15 - NOTICE
Any notice, demand, or request required by or made pursuant to this Agree-
ment shall be deemed properly made if personally delivered in writing or
deposited in the United State mail, postage prepaid, to the address speci-
fied below.
To Engineer: BLACK & VEATCH, Engineers- Architects
Post Office Box 8405
Kansas City, Missouri 64114
Attention: Len C. Rodman
Partner -In- Charge
Civil- Environmental Division
To Owner: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Attention: Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to restrict the trans-
mission of routine communications between representatives of Engineer and
Owner.
ARTICLE 16 - UNCONTROLLABLE FORCES
Neither Owner nor Engineer shall be considered to be in default of this
Agreement if delays in or failure of performance shall be due to uncontrol-
lable forces the effect of which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence,
the nonperforming party could not avoid. The term "uncontrollable forces"
shall mean any event which results in the prevention or delay of perform-
ance by a party of its obligations under this Agreement and which is beyond
the control of the nonperforming party. It includes, but is not limited
to, fire, flood, earthquakes, storms, lightning, epidemic, war, riot, civil
disturbance, sabotage, inability to procure permits, licenses, or authori-
zations from any state, local, or federal agency or person for any of the
112789 7
accesses or services supplies, materials, required to be provided by q
PP
either Owner or Engineer under this Agreement, strikes, work slowdowns or
other labor disturbances, and judicial restraint.
Neither party shall, however, be excused from performance if nonperformance
is due to uncontrollable forces which are removable or remediable and which
the nonperforming party could have, with the exercise of reasonable dili-
gence, removed or remedied with reasonable dispatch. The provisions of
this Article shall not be interpreted or construed to require Engineer or
Owner to prevent, settle, or otherwise avoid a strike, work slowdown, or
other labor action. The nonperforming party shall, within a reasonable
time of being prevented or delayed from performance by an uncontrollable
force, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances
and uncontrollable forces preventing continued performance of the
obligations of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 17 - GOVERNING LAN
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota.
ARTICLE 18 - MISCELLANEOUS
18.1 Nonwaiver. A waiver by either Owner or Engineer of any breach of
this Agreement shall not be binding upon the waiving party unless such
waiver is in writing. In the event of a written waiver, such a waiver
shall not affect the waiving party's rights with respect to any other or
further breach.
18.2 Severability. The invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability of
any provision of this Agreement, or the occurrence of any event rendering
any portion or provision of this Agreement void, shall in no way affect the
validity or enforceability of any other portion or provision of the Agree-
ment. Any void provision shall be deemed severed from the Agreement and
the balance of the Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if the
Agreement did not contain the particular portion or provision held to be
void. The parties further agree to reform the Agreement to replace any
112789 8
stricken provision with a valid provision that comes as close as possible
to the intent of the stricken provision.
The provisions of this section shall not prevent the entire Agreement from
being void should a provision which is of the essence of the Agreement be
determined to be void.
ARTICLE 19 - INTEGRATION AND MODIFICATION
This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the
Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agree-
ments, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a
written instrument signed by each of the Parties.
ARTICLE 20 - SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
Owner and Engineer each binds itself and its directors, officers, partners,
successors, executors, administrators, assigns and legal representatives to
the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, execu-
tors, administrators, assigns, and legal representatives of such other
party, in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE 21 - ASSIGNMENT
Neither Owner nor Engineer shall assign, sublet, or transfer any rights
under or interest in (including, but without limitation, monies that may
become due or monies that are due) this Agreement without the written
consent of the other, except to the extent that the effect of this limita-
tion may be restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to the contrary
in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or
discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agree-
ment. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent Engineer from
employing such independent consultants, associates, and subcontractors as
he may deem appropriate to assist him in the performance of the Services
hereunder.
112789 9
ARTICLE 22 THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
Nothing erein shall be construed to give an rights or benefits to anyone
g 8 Y g
other than Owner and Engineer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement.
B
Y
(Date)
Title
By
(Date)
Title
112789 10
L
ATTACHMENT A
TO
CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
Owner: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Project: Well No. 10
DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES
Based on previous studies performed by the Engineer, the Owner has decided
to proceed with the addition of a new water supply well (No. 10). The well
location will be selected based on a preliminary letter report to be
prepared as the first phase of this project. It is anticipated that the
probable location for Well No. 10 will be on City property adjacent to Well
No. 9, however, alternate sites will be evaluated in the letter report.
Following review and acceptance of the letter report by the Owner, the
Engineer will begin design of the well and ancillary facilities. The well
will be drilled to the Jordan aquifer, but will be provided with an
oversized casing to allow future drilling to a deeper formation. The
well house will be similar to the Well No. 9 design, with the exception
that chlorine scrubbing facilities will be added to meet a recently
proposed building code. Consideration will be given in selection of the
pumping equipment for the future change in discharge head when the ground
storage reservoir is constructed. Discharge piping will be included to
connect the Well No. 10 to the well collection system, approximately 500
feet of 16 inch pipe is anticipated. The length is based on the previously
proposed Well No. 10 site and assumes paralleling the entrance road. The
Owner has implemented a SCADA system since Well No. 9 was constructed.
This project will add the monitoring and control functions for new Well No.
10 and existing Well No. 2 to the SCADA system.
The detailed scope of services for this Well No. 10 is as follows. Work
under any particular phase will not proceed until Owner has authorized
Engineer in writing to proceed.
PHASE 1 WELL SITE SELECTION STUDY
A. Preliminary and General Items
1. Consult with the Owner to select the location of the sites and
obtain property descriptions for alternative well sites, up to
three sites will be considered.
2. Revise previous drawdown calculations based on past wellfield
performance data and the proposed well sites.
3. Review the probable effects on other wells including
modifications to existing wells and any increased operating costs
to accommodate the increased drawdown.
i
121189 A -1
B. Letter Report
1. Prepare a draft letter report which includes a recommended
site for Well No. 10 and opinions of probable construction cost
for that plan. Submit five copies to Owner for review and
comment.
2. Meet with the Owner, to discuss any comments on the draft letter
report.
3. After receipt of comments, revise report and submit five copies
of final letter report to Owner.
PHASE 2 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND PREAWARD
SERVICES
A. Design Memorandum
1. Prepare a detailed design memorandum and preliminary drawings as
required to establish agreement on scope, parameters, performance
requirements, and project approach. Submit five copies to the
Owner for review.
2. Meet with the Owner and secure Owner's comments on the design
memorandum and preliminary documents. Resolve any questions,
revise documents if necessary, and resubmit five copies to the
Owner.
3. Submit the design memorandum to the Minnesota Department of
Health.
4. Update and distribute the design memorandum periodically as
required during the design phase.
B. Geotechnical Services
1. Assist the Owner in engaging qualified geotechnical engineering
services as described under Attachment C, including exploratory
work, laboratory and field testing, and professional guidance in
tests to be made at test locations based on preliminary drawings
and designs and including professional interpretations of
exploratory and test data.
2. After final design has proceeded to the point where structure
locations excavation depths foundation loadings line routing and
depths have been established, have the subcontractor prepare a
final geotechnical evaluation and report considering both design
parameters and constructability and as described under
Attachment C.
121189 A -2
C. Construction Drawings and Specifications
1. Prepare detailed drawings and specifications for the proposed
construction work and for all equipment required.
The documents will be prepared for construction by private
contractors on a competitive bid basis.
2. Work will be divided into the following construction and purchase
contracts:
a. Contract No. 1 - Well Drilling
b. Contract No. 2 - Well House
3. Prepare an opinion of probable construction cost for the proposed
work covered by the drawings and specifications.
4. Provide three (3) sets of drawings and specifications to the
Owner for review.
5. Meet with the Owner after documents have been reviewed to discuss
them and to resolve any questions.
6. After the conference with the Owner, make any necessary modifi-
cations and submit three sets of revised detail drawings and
specifications to the Owner for submittal to the Minnesota
Department of Health for review and two sets to the Owner for
record.
7. Upon completion of the review of the drawings and specifications,
review the opinion of probable construction cost and revise and
expand as required.
D. Preaward Services
1. Coordinate bid letting date, time, and place with the Owner and
prepare final Invitation to Bid.
2. Assist and advise the Owner in placing the advertisements of the
Invitation to Bid.
3. Identify potential contractors and suppliers, and distribute
copies of the Invitation to Bid. Maintain a record of
prospective bidders and suppliers to whom drawings or
specifications have been issued.
4. Provide a sufficient number of sets of construction contract
drawings and specifications for bidding purposes, and distribute
the drawings and specifications to prospective bidders.
121189 A -3
5. Distribute plan holders' list to recipients of drawings and
specifications prior to bid opening.
6. Receive deposits for construction contract drawings and
specifications. Process refunds to unsuccessful bidders. To
reduce reproduction and mailing expenses, the Engineer shall
retain any portion of the deposit which is not refundable.
7. Interpret construction drawings and specifications, and provide
written responses to questions from bidders requiring clarifica-
tion during the bidding period. Prepare and issue addenda to the
construction contract documents when required.
8. Assist the Owner during bid opening. Answer questions during bid
opening.
9. Following the bid opening, make preliminary tabulation of bids,
review questionnaires and bids for completeness, and examine the
questionnaire to identify any supplier whose equipment or
materials may not conform to the construction contract documents.
This examination will be based on the knowledge and past
experience of the Engineer.
10. Review and evaluate the qualifications of the apparent successful
bidder and the proposed major or specialty subcontractor. The
review and evaluation will include such factors as work pre-
viously completed, whether adequate equipment is available to
complete the work properly and expeditiously, financial
resources, and technical experience.
11. Prepare and distribute formal bid tabulation sheets, evaluate
bids, and make written recommendations to the Owner concerning
contract award.
12. Prepare and distribute conforming copies of the construction
contract documents. These services will include review of Con -
tractor's bonds, furnishing the Contractor unsigned construction
contract documents, and transmitting the construction contract
documents to the Owner for signature and distribution.
13. Distribute five sets of the construction contract drawings and
specifications to the successful bidder.
PHASE 3 SCADA SYSTEM DESIGN
1. At approximately the 50 percent completion point of design for
Contract No. 2, the Engineer will meet with the Owner to outline
the requirements for the SCADA system modifications.
2. Depending on the requirements, the Engineer will prepare either
bidding documents for the modifications or assist the Owner in
direct negotiation with the SCADA system vendor.
121189 A -4
PHASE 4 SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES
A. Any work requested by the Owner that is not included in one of the
items listed in any other phase will be classified as supplemental
services.
B. Supplemental services shall include but are not limited to:
1. Supplemental engineering work required to meet the requirements
of regulatory or funding agencies that become effective
subsequent to the date of this agreement.
2. Special consultants or independent professional associates
requested or authorized by the Owner.
3. Assistance with bid protests and rebidding, preparation for liti-
gation, arbitration or other legal or administrative proceedings,
and appearances in court or at arbitration sessions.
4. Additions to an engineering report after Phase 1 is complete to
update or revise original recommendations.
5. Provision, through a subcontract, of land and property surveys
and property descriptions, including legal property description,
as required by the project.
6. Provide project administration during construction.
The Engineer will perform project administration services during
the construction phase of the project. By performing these
services, the Engineer shall not have authority or responsibility
to supervise, direct, or control the Contractor's work or the
Contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures
of construction. The Engineer shall not have authority or
responsibility for safety precautions and programs incident to
the Contractor's work or for any failure of the Contractor to
comply with laws, regulations, rules, ordinances, codes or orders
applicable to the Contractor furnishing and performing the work.
Specific services to be performed by the Engineer are as follows:
a. Review the Contractor's insurance certificates and forward
the certificates to the Owner for acceptance by the Owner's
legal counsel. The Engineer's review of the insurance
certificates is only for the purpose of determining if the
Contractor maintains the general types and amounts of
insurance required by the specifications, and is not a legal
review to determine if the Contractor's insurance coverage
complies with all applicable requirements.
121189 A -5
b. Review and comment on the Contractor's initial and updated
construction schedule and advise the Owner as to
acceptability.
C. Make monthly one day visits to the construction site to
observe progress of the work and consult with the Owner and
Contractor concerning problems and /or progress of the work.
d. Review drawings and other data submitted by the Contractor
as required by the construction contract documents. The
Engineer's review shall be for general conformity to the
construction contract drawings and specifications for the
project and shall not relieve the Contractor of any of his
contractual responsibilities. Such reviews shall not extend
to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of
construction or to safety precautions and programs incident
thereto.
e. Receive and review guarantees, bonds, and certificates of
inspection, tests, and approvals which are to be assembled
by the Contractor(s) in accordance with the construction
contract documents, and transmit them to the Owner.
f. Interpret construction contract drawings when requested by
the Owner or Contractor. If authorized by the Owner and the
Contractor, the Engineer may interpret construction contract
drawings and specifications upon request by subcontractors and
suppliers.
g. Review and process the Contractor's monthly payment
requests, and forward to the Owner if applicable. The
Engineer's review shall be for the purpose of making a full
independent mathematical check of the Contractor's payment
request. The Owner is responsible for verifying the
quantities of work which are the basis of the payment
request.
h. Provide documentation and administer the processing of
change orders, including applications for extensions of
construction time. Evaluate the cost and scheduling aspects
of all change orders and, where necessary, negotiate with
the Contractor to obtain a fair price for the work. Said
negotiation shall be subject to the approval of the Owner.
i. Upon completion of the project, revise the construction
contract drawings to conform to the construction records.
Submit one set of mylar copies to the Owner.
121189 A -6
j. Act as initial arbiter on all claims of the Owner and the
Contractor relating to the acceptability of the work or the
interpretation of the requirements of the construction contract
documents pertaining to the execution and progress of the work.
k. Analyze data from performance testing of equipment by the
Contractor or supplier when the construction contract
documents require the equipment to be tested after instal -
lation. Submit conclusions to the Owner.
1. Upon substantial completion, inspect the construction work
and prepare a listing of those items to be completed or
corrected before final completion of the project. Submit
results of the inspection to the Owner and Contractor.
M. Upon completion or correction of the items of work on the
punch list, conduct final inspection to determine if the
work is completed. Provide written recommendations
concerning final payment to the Owner, including a list of
items, if any, to be completed prior to the making of such
payment.
121189 A -7
ATTACHMENT B
TO
CONTRACT FOR IINGINEERING SERVICES
Owner: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Project: well No. 10
COKPENSATION
For the services covered by this Contract, the Owner agrees to pay the
Engineer as follows:
A. For Well Site Selection Study for Phase 1, an amount equal to the
Engineer's salary costs tines 2.75 plus reimbursable expenses at cost
and plus subcontract billings times 1.05. The maximum billed for
these services shall not exceed $9,400 without further authorization.
B. For design, construction drawings and specifications and preaward
services for Phase 2, a fixed price of $83,000. If the scope of the
work increases or decreases significantly or the start of design work
has not been authorized within 6 months after the date of this
Contract, the amount of the fixed price shall be subject to
renegotiation.
C. For services regarding the SCADA system modifications Phase 3, an
amount equal to the Engineer's salary cost times 2.75 plus
reimbursable expenses at cost and plus subcontract billings times
1.05. The billing limit will be established before services are
started.
D. For supplemental services Phase 4, an amount equal to the Engineer's
salary costs times 2.75 plus reimbursable expenses at cost and plus
subcontract billings times 1.05. Each item of supplemental services
shall be specifically authorized by the Owner, and a maximum billing
limit shall be established before the work is started. The amount
billed for each item of supplemental services shall not exceed the
amount established for it without further authorization. Additional
amounts for supplemental services may be authorized, if necessary, as
the vork progresses.
E. The following expenses are reimbursable under salary multiplier vork
items at cost for Phases 1, 3 and 4 above.
I. Travel, subsistence, and incidental costs.
2. Use of motor vehicles on a monthly rental basis for assigned
vehicles and on a mileage basis or rental cost basis for vehicles
used for short periods. Mileage basis shall be 25 cents per
mile.
40 010390 B -1
3. Telegraph costs, long distance telephone costs and project
"onsite" telephone costs.
4. Reproduction of reports, drawings, and specifications.
5. Postage and shipping charges for project- related materials.
6. Computer time charges including program use charges.
7. Rental charges for use of equipment, including equipment owned by
the Engineer.
F. The following expenses are reimbursable items at 1.05 times cost for
Phases 1, 3 and 4.
1. Cost of acquiring any other materials or services specifically
for and applicable to only this project.
2. Subcontract costs including those for soils and geotechnical
investigations and reports, testing laboratory services,
surveying and mapping services, assistant engineers, other
subcontract services.
G. The following expenses are not included in the billing limits or fixed
prices and are reimbursable under fixed price or salary multiplier
. work items:
1. Special insurance coverage required by the Owner not provided for
in ARTICLE 10, including the cost of naming the Owner as an
additional insured.
2. Local taxes or fees applicable to the engineering work or
payments therefor.
3. Charges for review of drawings and specifications by government
agencies, if any.
H. Monthly payments shall be made to the Engineer by the Owner based on
the Engineer's statement. For fixed price work items, the statement
shall indicate amount due proportionate to the progress of the work as
reported by the Engineer. For salary multiplier items, the statement
shall be itemized to indicate the amount of work performed and the
associated reimbursable expenses and subcontract costs.
I. The entire amount of each statement shall be due and payable upon
receipt by the Owner. Carrying charges of 1 -1/2 percent per month
from the billing date, shall be due for accounts which are not paid
within 30 days after the billing date.
121189 B -2
J. It is understood and s agreed that the fixed prices and maximum billings
g P g
of each of the above items are based on the start of the services
being authorized not later than the dates given below. If start of
services is not authorized by dates given, it is understood and agreed
that the fixed fees and total costs will be adjusted accordingly by a
supplement to this Agreement. The authorization dates are as follows:
Item Date
• Well Site Selection Study 1/15/89
• Design, Construction Drawings and 30 days after receipt
Specifications and Preaward Services of draft report on
well site study
K. The following timetable has been established for the project.
Substantial Construction Completion Contract No. 2 4/1/91
Final Construction Completion 5/1/91
The Engineer and Owner agree tc� make their best efforts to meet the
above schedule. However, there may be delays caused by other parties
beyond the control of the Engineer and Owner.
121189 B -3
ATTACHMENT C
TO
CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
Owner: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Project: Well No. 10
OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The Owner will furnish, as required by the work and not at the expense of
the Engineer, the following items:
1. All maps, drawings, property maps, reports, records, audits, annual
reports, and other data that are available in the files of the Owner
and which may be useful in the work involved under this contract.
2. Access to public and private property when required in performance of
the Engineer's services.
3. Office desk space for the Engineer's personnel during preliminary
investigations.
4. Property, boundary, easement, right -of-way, topographic, and utility
surveys and property descriptions.
5. All initial geotechnical exploratory work, such as soil borings,
penetration tests, soundings, subsurface explorations, laboratory
tests of soils, rock formation, and other geophysical phenomena which
are required to provide information for design and all other field and
laboratory tests and analyses which are required to provide design
information.
6. A final geotechnical report evaluating the initial geotechnical
investigation, field and laboratory test results, and the initial
geotechnical report. This evaluation shall be based on the design as
actually proposed, including size, location and loading of structures,
types and extents of excavations, and excavation procedures and shall
consider both design parameters and constructability. If, in the
opinion of the review professional or the Engineer, additional
geotechnical data is required for the preparation of this final
report, this data also shall be provided. The final report shall
indicate the anticipated performance of the subsurface material to be
encountered on the project under the loading conditions, use, and
types of excavations anticipated, both during and after construction.
7. Legal advertisement of project letting or bid date and such other
publications of the "Invitation To Bid" as desired by the Owner.
121189 C -1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1 / 8 /90
Agenda Item Number La
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03 - WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT
DEPT. APPROVAL.
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
As noted is a separate report (i.e. - report and resolution re: Well No. 10) it
is recommended that Phase I improvements to the City's water supply system be
• initiated, and that the City's engineering staff provide the engineering
services required for design and supervision of construction of the water main
improvements, while the design of Well No. 10 be assigned to a consultant.
Accordingly, this report recommends that the Council establish a project
consisting of the required water main improvements (see attached map) and direct
the City Engineer to prepare the plans and specifications for those
improvements. It is recommended that these improvements be completed in 1990 so
that they, and Well No. 10, will be "on- line" for the summer of 1991.
The estimated total project costs, including construction contract and
engineering, legal and financial fees is $600,000.
City Council Action Required
Adoption of the attached resolution.
•
la
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03 -
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY
ENGINEER TO PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS
IMPROVEMENT
WHEREAS, a August, 1989 study report on water works facilities for the
City of Brooklyn Center recommends that additional water mains be constructed as
part of the Phase I improvements outlined in that report; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works estimates that the total cost of
these improvements will be $600,000 and recommends that the City Engineer be
designated as the engineer for these improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. The proposed project will be designated as:
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03
2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for this
improvement. He shall prepare plans and specifications for the
making of this improvement.
3. All costs for this improvement shall be charged to the Public
Utility Fund.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
v i 1
N
LL
>( '
10• 10, \ 1
lo* icr
r i _ _ !� ✓oPo�ec� z p ��J 24 �N 24• 20• —
t
i WELL 3
EMEE c ( - - _ =- o
F1
Pro �
12" la ��� ayv PROPOSED 1990 WATER DISTRIBUTION
o� a SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
12 . I E _ =� PROJECT 1990 -03
�OiOSPd Z4 '' r
0 30'
v a —a o
c 6
n 6•
".!SELL 6 � �
0 TF
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting 11F
Agenda Item Number loll
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF A PROPERTY TRACKING SYSTEM FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
DEPT. APPROV,
Sig ture - title - James Lindsay, Chief of Police
MANAGE EVIEW RE
COMMENDATION.
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes )
Approved in the 1990 budget document are monies to purchase a bar code system
for the olice department's r
P p property room. Inventory Control Solutions is the only
company known that has adapted h department
P Y the bar code system for use in a police de
P
Y P P
property inventory room. The total cost of the tracking system is $8 250 and includes
I ,
gY
the hardware, software, and a consultant from California to spend two days in
Brooklyn Center for installation and trainin g of personnel. Those dates have been
scheduled for January 22 and 23, 1990.
The bar code system allows the department to track all property from the time it is
taken into custody until it is disposed of. It will be installed on the personal
computer in the investigative area. When fully operational, it will allow us to identify
the status of all property in custody. It will identify property removed from the
department, either at the lab, in the court system, et cetera. It can also identify all
in custody
longer than property Y g a 60 any s or an period of time.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council pass the resolution authorizing the purchase of the property
tracking system for the police department.
Member
introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING
THE PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY TRACKING SYSTEM
FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1990 budget for
the purchase of a property tracking system for the police department; and
WHEREAS, Inventory Control Solutions is the only known
company providing this product; and
WHEREAS, a price of $8,250 to include hardware, software,
installation, training, and maintenance agreement was received from Inventory
Control Solutions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of a property tracking system
from Inventory Control Solutions, in the amount of $8,250 is hereby approved.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF JAMES MCCLOSKEY
WHEREAS, James McCloskey served on the Brooklyn Center
Planning Commission from June 15, 1989, to November 16, 1989; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the
betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens
of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to
the community should be recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED ESOLVED b the City Council unci
1 of
the City of Brooklyn Center that the dedicated public service of
James McCloskey is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City
of Brooklyn Center.
Date
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/ 8/90
Agenda Item Number D—
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
0 ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MNDOT TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION OF THE SERVICE ROAD EAST OF
T.H. 252 BETWEEN 65TH AVENUE NORTH AND 66TH AVENUE NORTH TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER
DEPT. APPROVAL: j
* * * * * * * *, * KNA*P * , RECTOR *OF PUBLIC *W
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
The City Council is currently considering a concept plan (see copy attached) for
the possible redevelopment of the street system in the area between T.H. 252 and
• Willow Lane. One of the elements of that concept plan is the vacation of the
existing service road along the east side of T.H. 252 between 65th Avenue North
and 66th Avenue North, to allow the area now used as a roadway to be redeveloped
with the adjacent properties (subject to retainage of utility easements as necessary).
Because the right -of -way for this service road was purchased by MNDOT and the
service road was constructed by MNDOT, ownership and jurisdiction of that
roadway still lies officially with MNDOT, despite the fact that the City has
always maintained that roadway.
In our discussions with MNDOT representatives, they have given preliminary
indications that they would be willing to approve the "turn back" of
jurisdiction for this roadway to the City and advised that the City should
formally initiate this request by adoption of a resolution. If such a turn back
is approved, the City could then have official jurisdiction of the roadway,
including ownership of the right -of -way for the service road. Upon obtaining
such jurisdiction, the City could either choose to continue maintaining the
roadway (as we now do) or could discontinue the use of the roadway and transfer
ownership of the right -of -way to the adjacent property owners - subject, of
course, to the development of alternate access routes in coordination with those
property owners.
Because the City would assume no new responsibilities by assuming jurisdiction
of this roadway, and because that action would allow the City to pursue new
options (i.e. the attached concept plan or other options) City staff
S recommends adoption of the attached resolution in order to get the process started.
City Council Action Required
Adoption of the attached resolution.
4 0
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING MNDOT TO TRANSFER JURISDICTION OF THE
SERVICE ROAD EAST OF T.H. 252 BETWEEN 65TH AVENUE NORTH AND
66TH AVENUE NORTH TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MNDOT) is hereby
requested to transfer the jurisdiction of the service road which
lies east of T.H. 252 between 65th Avenue North and 66th Avenue
North to the City of Brooklyn Center, such transfer of jurisdiction
to include title to the right -of -way of said service road.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to submit this
request to MNDOT and to provide such assistance as may be necessary
to expedite the completion of this transfer of jurisdiction to the
City.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MOT Z_
FIELD
eow
j 1 N/LLow Fow
LAND- -
�ow — LJGIV&,�
`� PROPOSED REALIGNMEN T
s�cr !-
�L��✓MENr I i{ WEST RIVER ROAD
TO M/n/ /A/1/LE lz.LlD' � ( .C�O{/� - _
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
lQSa� 1x55 Z
C� Da I
PROJECT 1988 -18
i
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT
17 3 Q:i eq t4 1 11 '
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/ 8/90
Agenda Item Number ,O Q
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDANANCE VACATING PART OF A UTILITY EASEMENT IN BROOKDALE SQUARE 2ND
ADDITION
DEPT. APPROVAL:
5
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Explanation
The Council on December 18, 1989 conducted a first reading of an ordinance
vacating a drainage and utility easement in Brookdale Square 2nd Addition. The
owners of Brookdale Square have requested this vacation.
Notice of second reading and a public hearing concerning this proposed
ordinance was published in the Brooklyn Center Post on December 27, 1989. The
City's public utility division and private utility companies have been notified
and have provided comments.
The owners of Brookdale Square executed a Utility Maintenance and Inspection
agreement with the City at the time Brookdale Square 2nd Addition was platted.
This agreement assures the City access to both public and private water,
sanitary, and storm drainage facilities. The City's public utilities division
believes there are no City utilities located on the easement, and finds this
agreement adequate to meet any future inspection and maintenance needs.
The private utility companies have no objection to the vacation of this
easement.
Recommendation
Conduct second reading and public hearing. After hearing, consider adoption of
the proposed ordinance.
$ R L 3 M®
— e+ I I
e5D W•sr.re
i
07) 10 FT. DRAINAGE d (,)
' UTILITY EASEMENT EASEMENT PROPOSED
�
FOR VAC ATION
� J
,J
f N
rC
LL O
Z
Jy
J ' BROOKDALE SQUARE 2ND ADDN h
J
x�
BLOCK 1, LOT 1
N J
I
I
r ID ,
I
I - ;
5 FT. DRAINAGE d
/ UTILITY EASEWDff
1 i Jc
J •
I
- I A
I
gt00lmAl FORD
i�
Y:
I 580•apr06•'�U00. � MT•4Y3:yE •r. -- � —
CO RD iD I
1 j
BROOKDALE SQUARE EASEMENT VACATION
MAP 1
z
60TH AVE N
z Q��
z ASEMENT
w LOCATION
NTH AVE N Y' X' C
< x '� .. „ `
X ;; ♦y
BR00ffDAL 5\
�' ♦♦ X` < =�� SQUARE � '�< ♦ ;�
DR Ix,
co RD NO 10
57H AVE N
VICINITY MAP OF BROOKDALE SQUARE
EASEMENT VACATION
MAP 2
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given.that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of
`T 1990 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Part of a Utility and Drainage
Easement in Lot 1, Block 1, Brookdale Square 2nd Addition.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING PART OF A UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN
LOT 1 BLOCK 1 BROOKDALE SQUARE 2ND ADDITION _
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That part of Lot 1 Block 1 BROOKDALE SQUARE 2ND
ADDITION according to the plat on file and of record thereof Hennepin County
Minnesota described as follows:
Co at the southwest corner of said Lot 1 thence North 50 de rees
26 minutes 02 seconds East assumed bearing along the southeasterly line
of said Lot 1 a distance of 297.73 feet• thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes
08 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 1 a distance of 914.34
feet; thence North 0 degrees 06 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 5.00
feet to the actual oint of be innin • thence North 0 degrees 06 minutes 24
seconds East a distance of 585.61 feet thence South 69 degrees 17 minutes
21 seconds West a distance of 10.70 feet: thence South 1 de ree 51 minutes
46 seconds East a distance of 581.99 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09
minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 10.00 feet to the Point of
beginnine
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
lab
0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of
Janu ary _, 1990, at 7:30 .m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider amending Chapter 22 of the City Ordinances Relating to a Tax Imposed
upon Lodging.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE CITY
ORDINANCES RELATING TO A TAX IMPOSED UPON LODGING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 22, Sections 22 -002 and 22 -015 are hereby amended as
f ollows:
Section 22 -002. IMPOSITION OF TAX. There is hereby imposed a tax of six
(6 %) [three (3 %)] percent on the rent charged by an operator for providing lodging
to any person after the adoption of this ordinance and upon thirty (30) days
following its legal publication. The tax shall be stated and charged separately and
shall be collected by the operator from the lodger. [ The purpose of the tax must
be made known to the lodger by either inserting the statement "Proceeds from this
tax are used to fund a local convention or tourism bureau" on the lodger's receipt
or by posting the statement at the registration desk where it can be clearly seen by
the lodger.] The tax collected by the operator shall be a debt owed by the
operator to the City and shall be extinguished only by payment to the City. In no
case shall the tax imposed by this section upon an operator exceed the amount of
tax which the operator is authorized and required by this Chapter to collect from a
lodger.
Section 22 -015. USE OF PROCEEDS. [The] Ninety -five (9596) percent of
the ross proceeds from the first three (3%) percent of the tax imposed by this
ordinance [ obtained from the collection of taxes pursuant to this chapter ] shall be
used in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 469.190 [477A.0181 as the
same may be amended from time to time to fund a local convention or tourism
bureau for the purpose of marketing and promoting the City as a tourist or
convention center.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
I
ORDINANCE tD.
Adopted this day of , 1990.
ATTEST: Dean yq
A. Nuist, Mayor
Darlene K. Weeks, City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(Underline indicates new matter.)
BR291 -011
2
Ch. 1, Art. 8 LAWS of MTNNESUTA
1 110 1 l 1 L4t+`S of MINNESOTA Ch. I, Art. 9 3>
1989 FIRST SPECIAL SE,SSIUN 1989 FIRST SPECIAL SESSION
r. -
ARTICLE 8
ARTICLE 9 a�
LC)CAL REVENUE OPTION PROPOSED AND FINAL TA?C NOTICE
m: ry
S lion I. Minnesota Statutes 1989 Supplement, section 469.190, subdivi-
sion 1, is amended to read: le tor. 1. ivfinncsnta Statutes 1989 Supplement, section 124.2111, subdivi-
sion 1, is amended to read:
ti
Subdi sion 1. AUTHORIZATION. I` lotvAthstanding section 477A.016 or Subdivision 1. ADJUSTED GROSS TAX CAPACITY. (a) COMPU1'A- 4--
any other la a slshuory or home idlk crartar city may by ordinance, and a
TION. The department of revenue .hall annually asscssmentf
_ sal
town ms by t'r,: of emotive vote if the electors at the annual t an
own meeting or ratio study of the taxable property in each con du c t ch school district in accordance with the
at a special 10ivn meting, impale a tax of up to t� en
six percent on the gross ( --
rerzipts from the furnishing for consideration of lodging at a hotel, motel, Pr - etlures in paragraphs (b) and (c). Rased upon the results of this assrssmenb`
l rooming house, tourist court, or rc Urt, other than the renting or teasing of it for sales ratio study, the department of revenue shall determine an aaRgate e.qual
a continuous period of 30 days or moo:. •A statutory or home rule charter city ized gross tax capacity and an aggregate Nuahzod net lax capacity for the
various cla
may by ordinance impose the tax authorized under this subdivision an the s. of taxable property in each school district which tax capacity
r
camping site receipts of a municipal be designated as the adjusted gross tax capacity and the adjusted net tax
cipal campground, capacity, respectively. The department of revenue may incur the expense neo s-
Sea 2. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 469.190, subdivision 2, is amended nary to make the determinations - The commissioner of revenue may reimburse
to read: any county or governmental official for requested sm•ices performed in ascer-
taining the adjusted gross tax capacity and the adjusted net tax capacity. On or
Subd. 2. EXISTING TA CFS. No statutory or home rule charter city or before March 15 annually, the department of revenue shall file with the chair of
town may impose a tax under this section upon transient lodging that, when the tat committee of the house of representatives and the chair of the committee
combined with any tax authorized by special law or enacted prior to 1972, on taxes and tax laws of the senate a report of adjusted gross tax capacities and
exceeds a rate of t #Ke six percent. adjusted net tax capacities.
On or before 3tu" April li annually, the depart-
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 469.190, subdivision 3, is amended meat of revenue shall file its final report on the adjusted gross tax capacities and
W read. adjusted net tax capacities established by the previous year's assessment with the
commissioner of education and each county auditor for those school districts for
Subd, 3. DISPOSTI•ION OF FROCEEDS. Ninety -five percent of the gross which the auditor has the responsibility for determination of tax capacity rates.
proceeds from the first three percent of any tax imposed under subdivision 1 A copy of the report so filed shall be mailed to the clerk of each district invoh•ed
shall be used by the statutory or home — rule charter city or town to fund a local and to the county assessor or supenisor of assessments of the county or counties
convention of tourism bureau for the purpose of marketing promoting to which each district is located.
� p r'P trrtg and roman the
city or town as a tourist or convention center. 'This subdi- ,ision shall not apply
to any statutory or home rule charter city or town that has a lodging tax (b) NfETHODOLOGY. In making its annual assess nentlsales ratio studies,
authorizmed by special la or enacted prior to 1972 at the time of enactment of the department of revenue shall use a methodology oonaistent with the most
this section, recent Standard on Assessment Ratio Studies published by the assessment stars-
'' lards committee of the International Association of Assessing Officers. The
t - Sec. 4, EFFECTIVE DATE. commissioner of revenue &hall supplement this general methodology with speaftc
procedures necessary for execution of the study in accordance with.other Minne`
Sections 1 to 3 are effective January 1 1990. rota laws impacting the assessment/sales ratio study. The commissioner shall
document these specific procedures in writing and shall publish the procedures
in the State Register, but these procedures will not be considered "toles" pursu-
ant to the Minn
a
esot administrative o
trustrative
F
racedure act.
(c) AGRICULTURAL LkND& For purposes of determining the adjusted �
gross tax cap acity earl adjusted net tax ca
l� Y J pact of agricultural lands
t} gn for the �
calculation of adjusted grass tax capacities and adjusted net tax capacities, the
market value of agricultural lands shall be the price for which the property
would sell in an arms length transaction. °
w
Ntw lasgmge is indicated by urLde iae. dekHons by "keetk . New langaage is indicated by underline. deW*os AT mi4ieeu
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/8/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 REGARDING PERSONNEL
DEPT. APPROVAL:
I
hfhA44!2V__, Personnel Coordinator
Signature - fitle
************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: * * **
No comments to supplement this report . Comments below /attached
*************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
* ******** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The attached ordinance will add Columbus Day as a defined holiday for City employees as permitted
in Chapter 17 of the City ordinances. The rationale for adding this holiday is to provide
• nonorganized employees with the same number of holidays as the organized employees.
REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass for a first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 17
Regarding Personnel.
III
•
i
/3e
CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of
1990, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Personnel Ordinance to add
Columbus Day as a defined holiday.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please contact the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
PERSONNEL
The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows:
follows: Section 1. Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended as
Section 17 -117. HOLIDAY LEAVE.
1. Holidays Defined. Holiday leave shall be granted for the following
holidays:
New Year's Day January 1
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Third Monday in January
Washington's & Lincoln's
Birthdays Third Monday in February
Memorial Day Last Monday in May
Independence Day July 4
Labor Day First Monday in September
Christopher Columbus Dad Second Monday in October
Veteran's Day November 11
Thanksgiving Day Fourth Thursday in November
Post - Thanksgiving Day Friday after Fourth Thursday
in November
Christmas December 25
ORDINANCE NO.
Floating Holiday Scheduled with permission of
employees' supervisor.
Floating holidays must be
taken within the calendar year;
they cannot be accumulated.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of
1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 1 -8 -90
Agenda Item Number Z
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 to Establish a Planned Unit Development Zoning
District
DEPARTMENT AP VAL:
. 6ja-��
Signature - title Director of Planning and Inspection
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached k" )
At the November 27, 1989 City Council meeting, there was a discussion item regarding
the adoption of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance for the City. The
Planning Commission, at their November 16, 1989 meeting, had recommended to the City
Council the adoption of such an ordinance amendment.
• The purpose of the ordinance is to provide the City with a tool which will allow for
flexibility in land development and redevelopment. The PUD ordinance gives the
City the ability to mix land uses and to approve development plans which may be
different, to some extent, from our normal development standards. Plans for such
developments or redevelopments become a principal part of the process, and
development agreements establish what can and cannot be undertaken in the project.
Attached for the City Council's review is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes
from November 16, 1989. The Commission's consideration of the PUD ordinance can be
found on pages 1 through 4 of those minutes. Also attached is a copy of November 14,
1989 memo to the Planning Commission from the staff relating to this ordinance
proposal.
The City Attorney has suggested some revisions regarding the designation of the
various PUD zones which were discussed with the City Council at the November 27
meeting. The revisions have been incorporated into the ordinance and provide for
an overlay zoning in which an underlying zoning classfication would continue to
apply to the property so that the applicable regulations regarding uses and
structures in the underlying zone would govern if need be. The designation would be
a combination of the letters "PUD" followed by an alphanumeric designation of the
underlying zoning district such as C1. In cases where it may not be practicable to
designate a specific underlying zoning classification, the Council could designate
the district as "PUD- MIXED ".
The City Council, at their November 27 meeting, requested sample applications and
agreements from other communities. Attached is a copy of the City of Golden
Valley's development agreement, staff reports and permit for the PUD for "The
Colonnade ". The 35 page development agreement and 20 pages of exhibits make up the
vast majority of the information submitted and shows the importance of the document
and the development plan in the PUD process.
SUMMARY EXPLANATION
Page 2
I'd suggest that the Council consider a $500 PUD application fee (equivalent to our
current $300 rezoning fee and our $200 site and building plan fee) . This would be in
addition to the applicant being responsible for paying the actual costs incurred for
engineering, planning, and legal expenses required for the City to process such an
application.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council hold a first reading on the proposed PUD
ordinance.
•
•
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
1989 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to establish a Planned
Unit Development zoning district.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is
hereby amended as follows:
Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose.
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote
flexibility is land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically
significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and
ensure a high quality of design.
Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable
Regulations.
a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters
"PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning
district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new
classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall,
whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning
classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not
reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications,
the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED."
b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as
those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following:
1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the
Council at the time of rezoning to PUD.
2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary
to comply with the development plan of the PUD.
3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD - MIXED, the Council shall
specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various
parts of the district.
I
i
ORDINANCE N0.
c. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures
on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on
the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning class ification of
PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the
district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- 4IXED, the underlying
zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which
allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and
which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby
properties.
Subdivision 3. Development Standards.
a_ A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within
the flooaway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing
rights of way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following
conditions exists: _
1. there are unusual physical features of the property or of the
surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve
a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or
community;
2. the property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way
from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD
will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously
approved development; or
3. the property is located in a transitional area between different land
uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses.
b_ Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be
consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or
lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the
entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards.
e_ Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with
Section 35 -4OG to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standara should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or
other mitigative measures.
d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking
requirements containea in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the
developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser
standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak
parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require
execution of a restrictive convenant limiting future use of the property
to ose uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which
are otherwise approved by the City.
Subdivision 4. General Standards.
a_ The City may allow more than one principal builaing to be constructed on
each piatted lot within a PUD.
b
ORDINAhCc NO.
b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be
permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and
objectives of this section. —
c_ A PUD may be located only in an area designated for redevelopment in the
City's Comprehensive Plan. —
d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership
or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be
necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site
Glan.
e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for
streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land
subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances
generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve
streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not
in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where
it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or
of the City. — — —
Subdivision 5. Application and Review.
a_ Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The
cevelopment plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after
evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development
plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms
and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem
necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following:
1. street and utility locations and sizes;
2. a drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas; —
<. a grading plan ;
4. a landscape plan;
5. a lighting plan;
6. a plan for timing and phasing of the development;
7. covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the
development; —
8. a site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas;
— — —
9. building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all
buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of
develo me
nt and
— — —
P ;
ORDINANCE NO.
10. proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications.
Such information may in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently
complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the
City. — —
b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development
plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official
newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent
property owners as required by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. the
Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such
recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time
limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance.
c_ Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the
City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the
matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the
time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. Approval of
the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and
conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the
guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance, the City Council
shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following critieria:
1_ compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of
this section;
2. consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan;
3. the impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located;
and — — — - - --
4. the adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities,
circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational
areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping.
The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may
determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD
district. —
d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan
approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the
information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall
submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the
City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the
approved development plan.
The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial
compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in
essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of
dwelling units any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5
percent; the floor area of non - residential areas has not been increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the
number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its
original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not
been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent.
e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a
development agreement io a form satisfactory to the City.
f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval
requirea by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both
simultaneously.
g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by
Section 35 -230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building
permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans.
h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the
development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12
months after the issuance of building permits no construction has
commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may
initiate rezoning of the property.
i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City
Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this
section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change
greater than that permitted by subdivision 5.d. of this section. Changes
which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved
by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
NOVEMBER 16, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by
Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, 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 Commissioner Bertil Johnson was out of town and was excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 26, 1989
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of
the October 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor:
Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION REGARDING CHANGE OF BROOKWOOD HOUSING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE
Chairperson Malecki introduced the first item of business, a resolution finding
that the modified project plan for the Brookwood housing development project and the
modified tax increment plan for the Earle Brown Farm tax increment district are
consistent with the plans for development of the City of Brooklyn Center. She asked
whether there were any comments.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether staff had met with the Brooklyn Center school
district. The Secretary responded that the City Manager and the Economic
Development Authority Coordinator have been meeting with the school district
officials. He stated that there was a public hearing scheduled for this matter at
the City Council meeting on November 27 and that the matter would probably be laid
over at that time.
ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 5 REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF A
CHANGE IN THE HOUSING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN WITH THE CITY' S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 89 -5 regarding the modification of the Brookwood housing
district boundary and the modification of the tax increment plan for the Earle Brown
Farm as being consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor:
Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Bernards,Mann and McCloskey.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEM
PUD Ordinance
The Secretary then briefly introduced the draft Planned Unit Development Ordinance
and stated that he would like to review it point by point in hopes that the Commission
would be ready to take action on it at this evening's meeting.
11 -16 -89 _1_
Commissioner Ainas stated that he wished to withdraw his suggestion for a
restriction requiring a minimum investment or minimum building to land ratio since
it would be difficult to arrive at a precise figure and even more difficult to
administer in practice. The Secretary thanked Commissioner Ainas for his
comments. He stated that he agreed with the goal of the idea originally suggested
by Commissioner Ainas and that its objective of insuring high quality development
was consistent with the objective of the ordinance. He stated that the idea had
been considered by the staff. He added, however, that such a mechanism could reduce
flexibility and might have to be modified a number of times. Commissioner Ainas
stated that he wanted to avoid a PUD with a hot dog stand anchoring a mini warehouse
development. The Secretary answered that if the proposed ordinance would not allow
the City to avoid such a development then there is probably a problem with the
ordinance. He stated that, as the City deals with Planned Unit Developments, it is
likely that more standards for them will be set. He stated that the intent of the
ordinance, however, was to allow for more possibilities and that no use could
totally be ruled out ahead of time. Commissioner Ainas stated that, from the
perspective of a developer, it is important for a City to give a reasonably clear
indication as to what it really wants. He cited an example of a case in which he was
involved in private practice with a City which rejected a development proposal
without indicating what it did, in fact, wish to see.
The Secretary then began to review the draft ordinance point by point. He reviewed
the purpose section and the section on permitted uses. He noted the Comprehensive
Plan recommendations contained in the Land Use Revisions Map which would serve as
the basis for deciding what land uses would be allowed within a PUD. He explained
the relationship between some of the land use categories in that table in the
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning districts contained in the Zoning Ordinance. As
an example, he stated that the term "commercial retail" refers to the C2 zoning
district and the possibility of land uses other than purely retail uses. He added
that the Comprehensive Plan sometimes recommends mixed uses for a given area.
The Secretary then went on to review the section on development standards and gave
some examples of certain provisions regarding parking, setbacks, buffers, etc.
Commissioner Sander noted that she was in the real estate business and had seen a
number of problems in Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. She stated that she felt the
draft ordinance covered some of the areas of concern that have arisen in those
cities.
The Secretary went on to review the subdivision of the draft ordinance relating to
general standards. He gave the Commission some examples of possible redevelopment
districts, primarily in areas along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that one
question that the City will have to deal with is whether to predesignate certain
areas for a PUD classification or whether to deal with a PUD designation on a case by
case basis.
The Secretary then went on to review the provisions on application and review of a
PUD proposal. He noted that many of the procedural provisions are basically the
same as the rezoning process and that this is a lengthy procedure. He pointed out
that the ordinance would enable the City to approve not simply a general land use,
but a specific development plan which would have to be approved at least in a
preliminary manner along with the rezoning action.
There followed a brief discussion of Brooklyn Boulevard and the continuity of land
use in Brooklyn Center relative to that in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary discussed
this area and also County Road 10 as it enters Crystal.
11 -16 -89 -2-
Commissioner Sander asked what prompted the new PUD Ordinance. The Secretary
answered that the City was entering a time of its life as a community where there
would be more redevelopment and that redevelopment situations will call for more
flexibility on the part of the City. He stated that when a community is growing, it
needs tough standards. Otherwise, he went on, a city may simply give away the ship
to get new development. He stated that Brooklyn Center has a good commercial base,
but that the City may have to do some give and take in order to get quality
redevelopment in certain areas. He went on to discuss possible areas which would
need redevelopment, including 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Lynbrook area, the
industrial area at 50th and France, etc.
The Secretary stated that Brooklyn Boulevard probably would not ultimately have as
much office development as is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated
that the market is certainly not there now and that the City probably could not
sustain that much office in the future.
The Planner commented that a PUD Ordinance would be a sword that could cut both ways.
He stated that while the ordinance would allow for greater flexibility in improving
innovative arrangements, the construction of those arrangements might build in
inflexibility in future use of the property. He stated that this was a problem that
is faced by ordinary developments, but can be compounded when there is a mixture of
uses and one use relies somewhat on another. He stated that it is important that the
mixed use arrangements be a good long term investment. He noted some developments
that had been built in the last ten years which have not been stable land uses.
Chairperson Malecki brought up the example of the 35' buffer required when C2 uses
abut R1 property. She asked how the City would deal with a situation where the
commercial development exists first. The Secretary noted the example of the
property east of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center in the Northeast Neighborhood.
He pointed out that it had been zoned C2 for many years and that the owner proposed to
rezone the property to R1 in the 1970's. He explained that the City's position at
that time was that the R1 development would have to provide a 35' buffer strip even
though the ordinance places the burden on the commercial use.
Chairperson Malecki asked what would be done when the residential use existed first.
The Secretary answered that the City may or may not vary from the basic 35' buffer
requirement. He pointed out that, while developers will want to shrink the buffer
strip, neighboring properties will want to expand it or see some other amenities
provided.
The Planner commented that having hard and fast standards for development can save
time and money. He stated that they let the developer know what the standard is and
what the City will accept. He stated that they tend to make the City Council's
decision easier and avoid the need for costly consultants. The Secretary agreed
and pointed out that the PUD Ordinance will add flexibility, but with that will go
additional responsibility to closely analyze whether developments are properly
planned. Commissioner McCloskey stated that it sounded to him like the choice
facing the City was between changing standards or adding flexibility and that the
staff has recommended added flexibility. The Secretary agreed with this analysis.
Commissioner McCloskey asked whether the PUD Ordinance would result in more input
for the citizen or for the public official. The Secretary answered that the City
does not presently have a public hearing for site and building plan approvals. He
pointed out that the PUD process would involve public hearings and more public
input. He added, however, that the public can be legally unreasonable. He pointed
11 -16 -89 -3-
out that the public probably would not have supported integrated schools and housing
30 years ago if it were left up to a local vote. He stated that the PUD Ordinance is
another tool for controlling development. He cited one of the original zoning
cases, Euclid vs. Ambler Realty as a landmark zoning case. He stated that that case
established the legality of basic zoning in the 1920's. He added that 20 years ago
special use permits became popular because they gave the City discretion to approve
or deny certain uses within zoning districts. He pointed out, however, that the
legal reality has been that the burden has shifted to the City to justify denial of a
special use permit rather than being on the developer to prove that the proposal
meets the special use standards. He stated that, with a PUD Ordinance, the City
could be found to be arbitrary and capricious in approving one development concept
while rejecting another.
The Planner added that the Commission may want to think in the future about the
possibility of expanding the time period in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance
for considering rezonings and now PUD'S. He stated that the complexities of
gathering input on a proposed plan and seeking revisions could be a time consuming
process and that the 60 day time period may well be adequate. The Secretary
suggested that the City try working with the PUD Ordinance and see how the 60 day time
period works. He pointed out that the time limits in the Zoning Ordinance are
intended to keep the City from simply shelving a proposal and killing it by not
acting on it for an indefinite period of time.
MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PUD ORDINANCE
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner McCloskey to recommend
approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 to establish a Planned Unit Development
Zoning District in the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor: Chairperson
Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
The Secretary then noted the date of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on
December 7 and pointed out that the moratorium on development in the area of 66th and
West River Road would expire in mid December. He stated that he hoped to get the
Land Use Study to the Commission and ultimately to the City Council in December.
I
The Planner then showed the Planning Commission some building materials for the
Ethan Allen building. He noted that the wood trim would be lightened up and the
staccato board would also be lightened to an off -white color. He stated that he had
no problem with the color scheme proposed and recommended that the Planning
Commission not object unless the feeling is almost unanimous that the proposed color
J g P P
scheme is unattractive. The Commission had no objection to the proposed colors.
ADJOURNMENT
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded
by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The
motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Chairperson
11 -16 -89 -4-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PUD Ordinance
DATE: November 14, 1989
Attached is a slightly revised copy of the draft PUD Ordinance that we have
considered off and on over the past year. We will discuss at Thursday I s meeting how
this ordinance would work. If you read through the ordinance, you will realize that
designating a site PUD is procedurally very similar to a rezoning. What the PUD
designation adds, which no other zoning designation does, is the flexibility to mix
uses, depart to a limited extent from the Comprehensive Plan, and approve
development plans which vary from normal development standards without actually
granting a variance. We feel it is important that the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance still serve as the guide and point of departure in negotiating more
flexible development agreements. The Planning Commission should approach a PUD as
a method of making tradeoffs to accomplish quality development, not as an out and out
relaxation of standards.
We have added language in Subdivision 3d regarding parking. Subdivision 3 will
enable the City to review and approve development plans which, in the judgment of the
City, meet planning objectives without necessarily meeting every applicable
ordinance standard. At this point, we have not included a provision requiring a
minimum dollar investment, building to land ratio, or floor area ratio as suggested
by Commissioner Ainas. While we certainly agree with the objective of such a
provision - to foster high quality development - we feel that such a provision might,
in some cases, reduce the flexibility we are seeking to achieve with this ordinance.
If the Commission feels strongly that such a provision is appropriate, we will try to
work out approximate language at Thursday's meeting and include it in the ordinance
for City Council consideration, however, we do not believe such language is
necessary.
Ilk Yr a D 4_
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -- GOLDEN HILLS (TRAMMELL CROW)
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _a day
of March, 1986, by and between THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY (the "HRA "), a
public body corporate established and existing under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 462.411 et seq ., with its principal offices at
7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427, and
CROW MINNESOTA PROPERTIES, INC. ( "Crow "), a Texas corporation,
with its principal office in Minnesota located at Suite 375,
8400 Normandale Lake Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, the HRA and the City of Golden Valley (the
"City ") adopted the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan ")
on October 16, 1984, for the purpose of redeveloping
approximately eighty -three acres located in the City of Golden
Valley (the "Redevelopment Area ", shown in attached Exhibit A);
and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Area has been designated as
a tax increment district pursuant to applicable statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is intended to encourage private
development of the Redevelopment Area through various forms of
government aid and financial assistance; and
WHEREAS, Crow has submitted to the HRA a proposal (the
"Crow Project ") for the development of an office building and
parking ramp on a parcel located within that portion of the
- Redevelopment Area shown in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the HRA, after public hearing, has approved
the Crow Project as being consistent with the provisions of the
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.525, requires
the adoption of a development agreement between the parties
setting forth the mutual rights and obligations of the parties
in accordance with the provisions of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and
in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained
herein, the parties hereby adopt the following agreement:
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Article I - Definitions
1.1. Definitions 4
Article II - Representations and Warranties
2.1. Representations and Warranties by the HRA 7
2.2. Representations and Warranties by Crow g
Article III - Title and Other Matters
3.1. Marketable Title 10
3.2• Survey, Replatting and Soil Analysis 11
3.3.
Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments 12
3.4. Deed 12
3.5. Recording 13
3.6. Environmental Reviews 13
3.7. Use 13
3.8. Demolition 14
3 9
Condemnation tion 14
3.10. Signs 15
3.11. Future Proposals 15
3.12. No Subsidies 15
3.13. Hotel Option 15
Article IV - Construction of Improvements
4.1. Construction of Improvements 16
4.2. Plans 16
4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction 16
4.4. Certificate of Completion 17
4.5. Interim Letter of Credit 18
4.6 Completion Letter of
Credit
18
Article V - Assessment Agreement and Payment of Taxes
and Tax Increment
5.1. Execution of Assessment Agreement 19
5.2. Payment of Taxes; Assessments, Etc. 20
5.3 Guarantee of Tax Increment
20
Article VI - Insurance
6.1. Insurance 21
-2-
Article VII - Undertakings of the HRA; Tax Increment Bonds Pace
7.1. Acquisition of Development
Property; Relocation 24
7 .2 Limitations on Financial Undertakings
of the HRA 24
7.3. HRA to Maintain Existence 25
Article VIII - Mortgage Financing
8.1. Approval of Mortgage 25
8.2. Notice of Default; Copy to Mortgagee 26
8.3. Mortgagee's Option to Cure Defaults 26
8.4. HRA's Option to Cure Default on Mortgage 27
8.5 Subordinate Liens 27
Article IX - Restrictions on Transfer; Indemn ification
9.1. Restrictions on Transfer 27
9.2. Indemnification 28
Article X - Events of Default
10.1. Events of Default Defined 29
10.2. Remedies on Default 30
10.3. No Remedy Exclusive 31
10.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver 31
Article XI - Additional Provisions
11.1. Equal Employment Opportunity 31
11.2. Not for Speculation 32
11.3. Titles of Articles and Section 32
11.4. Notices and Demands 32
11.5. Counterparts 32
11.6. Modification 32
11.7. Law Governing 33
11.8. Severability 33
11.9. Duration 33
11.10 Contingency 33
Article XII - Termination of Agreement
12.1. Crow's Option to Terminate 33
12.2. Effect of Termination 34
-3-
1 -
ARTICLE I
Definitions
Section 1.1. Definitions In this Agreement, unless a
different meaning clearly appears from the context:
" Agreement " means this Private Development Agreement by
and between The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for
the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota and Crow Minnesota
Properties, Inc., a Texas corporation, as the same may be from
time to time modified, amended or supplemented.
" Articles and Sections mentioned by number only are the
respective Articles and Sections of this Agreement so numbered.
" Assessor's Minimum Market Value means the agreed
minimum market value for calculation of real estate taxes
certified by the Assessor for Hennepin County for the Improved
Parcel pursuant to the Assessment Agreement.
" Assessment Agreement means the assessment agreement
to be executed by the HRA and Crow, and certified by the
Assessor for Hennepin County, pursuant to the provisions and
requirements Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8,
establishing the Assessor's Minimum Market Value for the
Improvements, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
" Certificate of Completion means the certification, in
the form of the certificate contained in Exhibit D attached to
and made a part of this Agreement, provided to Crow or its
successors or assigns pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement
upon satisfactory completion of the Improvements.
" City " means the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota.
" Closing Date means the date upon which the HRA
conveys the Development Property to Crow, which shall be on
November 30, 1986, or such earlier date as the parties agree,
time being of the essence.
" County " means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota.
" Crow " means Crow Minnesota Properties, Inc., a Texas
corporation, or its successors or assigns under this Agreement.
" Crow Proiect means the construction and use of the
Improvements by Crow on the Development Property pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement.
" Development Plans means the plans, specifications,
drawings, and related documents on all construction work to be
performed by Crow on the Development Property, including all
-4-
I
1
on -site improvements to be performed, installed or constructed
upon the Development Property pursuant to this Agreement. Such
Plans shall, at a minimum, include, for each building or other
structure to be constructed on the Development Property, at
least the following: (i) site plan; (ii) floor plan for first
floor and a typical floor plan; (iii) elevations (all sides) and
exterior materials; and (iv) landscape and drainage plan, and
shall also include adequate plans, drawings and specifications
relating to all driveways, walks, parking, and other improvements
to be constructed upon the Development Property by Crow. Such
plans shall comply with all applicable City codes and ordinances.
" Development Property means a parcel located within
that portion of the Redevelopment Area shown in Exhibit B. The
exact legal descriptions of the parcel shall be agreed upon by
the HRA and Crow, provided that such legal description shall
conform substantially to the area in Exhibit B shown thereon to
be occupied by the Improvements.
" Event of Default means an action by Crow listed in
Section 10.1 of this Agreement.
" First Mortgage means any senior mortgage which
covers, in whole or in part, any interest in the Development
Property under this Agreement or otherwise, or any portion or
parcel thereof, or any improvements constructed thereon,
including but not limited to the Improvements, and which is a
permitted encumbrance pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII
of this Agreement. The parties agree that Crow may place
separate First Mortgages on separate portions of the Development
Property.
" means The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in
and for the City of Golden Valley.
" Holder " means the owner of a First Mortgage.
" Improved Parcel means the Development Property and the
completed Improvements.
" Improvements " means an office facility with
approximately 15 floors, with a minimum of 259,000 gross square
feet, and a parking ramp with a minimum of 1,000 parking spaces
and constructed in such a way so as to permit the addition of
250 spaces in the future, plus all other improvements, including
fixtures and equipment but excluding interior tenant finishing,
to be constructed by Crow upon the Development Property pursuant
to this Agreement, as such improvements are defined in the
Development Plans. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event
construction of the hotel pursuant to the Private Development
Agreement - Golden Hills (Embassy Suites) is not commenced by
January 1, 1987, for any reason other than a default by Crow
hereunder, the number of parking spaces in the parking ramp may
-5-
be reduced by Crow to 800, provided that, in such event, the
parking ramp shall be constructed by Crow to permit the
construction of an additional level or levels in the future for
the purpose of increasing the number of spaces to 1,250.
" Maturity Date means the date when the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Tax Increment Bonds are
paid in full, by retirement, redemption or otherwise, or are
deemed paid in full pursuant to defeasance. Maturity Date shall
not be extended by refunding without the prior agreement of the
parties.
" Net Proceeds means any proceeds paid by an insurer to
Crow or the Holder of the First Mortgage under a policy or
policies of fire or casualty insurance to be provided and
maintained by Crow pursuant to Article VI of this Agreement and
remaining after deducting all expenses (including fees and
disbursements of counsel) incurred in the collection of such
proceeds.
" Party " means either the HRA or Crow.
" Parties " means the HRA and Crow.
" Permitted Encumbrances means the encumbrances
described in Exhibit E of this Agreement.
" Plan " means the Golden Hills Redevelopment Plan,
adopted by the City and the HRA on October 16, 1984, and as
amended through the date hereof.
" Preliminary Plans means the preliminary development
plan submitted by Crow as part of its proposal and approved by
the HRA as being consistent with the Plan, and attached as
Exhibit F. The Preliminary Plans include, at a minimum, a site
plan, exterior rendering, and description of exterior materials.
" Purchase Price means the sum of $6.00 per square foot
of the Development Property, subject to a survey thereof, less
the amount for demolition determined in accordance with Section
3.8, and less the amount of any park dedication fees assessed by
the City with respect to the Development Property.
" Redevelopment Area means the approximately 83 acres
located in Golden Valley, Minnesota that are subject to the Plan.
" State " means the State of Minnesota.
" Tax Increment Bonds means the general obligation, tax
increment bonds which the City intends to issue to finance
acquisition of that portion of the Redevelopment Area shown in
Exhibit B. If any allocation of the Tax Increment Bonds is
-6-
4
required under this Agreement between the Development Property
and the parcel which is the subject of the Private Development
Agreement - Golden Hills (Embassy Suites), 53.23 percent of the
total outstanding principal balance shall be allocated to the
Development Property. The term "Tax Increment Bonds" shall also
include any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment
Bonds, limited to an amount not greater than the then remaining
principal of the Tax Increment Bonds.
" Tax Increment Financing Act means the statutes
located at Minnesota Statutes, Sections - 273.71 through 273.78,
inclusive, as amended.
" Tax Increment Financing Plan means the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for City of Golden Valley.
"Tax Official" means any City or County Assessor; County
Auditor; County or State Board of Equalization; the Commissioner
of Revenue of the State; or any State or Federal District Court,
the Tax Court of the State or the State Supreme Court.
" Unavoidable Delays means actual delays due to events
affecting the Development Property which are beyond the control
of Crow, including but not limited to labor disputes, unusually
severe or prolonged bad weather, acts of God, fire or other
casualty, injunctions, or other court or administrative orders.
ARTICLE II
Representations and Warranties
Section 2.1. Representations and Warranties by the
HRA The HRA represents and warrants that:
(a) The HRA has the power to enter into this
Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder.
(b) The Redevelopment Area constitutes a
Redevelopment Project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
§462.421, and a Tax Increment District pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, §462.585, and is an "existing
project" pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §273.78.
(c) The HRA has examined this Agreement, and has
determined that its terms and provisions are in
accordance with the objectives embodied in the Plan,
and are in the best interests of the City and the
health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents.
(d) Subject to fulfillment of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, the HRA shall acquire the
Development Property, and shall sell the Development
Property to Crow upon the terms provided in this
Agreement.
-7-
t
(e) The HRA shall use its best efforts with the
City so that the Improvements may constitute a
permitted use under the zoning ordinance of the City.
(f) The Crow Project, as defined and described in
this Agreement, is in conformance with the Plan.
(g) The HRA shall use its best efforts with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide Crow
with reasonable access to the Development Property at
all relevant times, to cause the acquisition and
demolition of any structures presently located at the
intersection for Xenia Avenue and the frontage road
adjoining the Development Property as proposed in
Exhibit B, and to prevent the use of areas in close
proximity to the Development Property as staging or
storage areas for the construction of Interstate
Highway 394, although the HRA does not guarantee any of
such matters and shall not assume any costs associated
therewith.
(h) The HRA shall use its best efforts to provide
for the development and redevelopment of the
Redevelopment Area, including the portion in close
proximity to the Development Property, in accordance
with the Plan.
The above representations and warranties are true and complete
as of the date hereof, shall be true and complete as of the date
of closing, and shall survive the closing.
Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by Crow
Crow represents and warrants that:
(a) Crow is a corporation duly organized and in
good standing under the laws of the state of Texas, is
qualified to do business and in good standing under the
laws of Minnesota, is not in violation of any
provisions of its Articles or Certificate of
Incorporation or its Bylaws, has power to enter into
this Agreement and to perform its obligations
hereunder, and has duly authorized the execution,
delivery and performance of this Agreement by proper
corporate action, such that this Agreement is and shall
remain binding and enforceable against Crow according
to its terms.
(b) On or before July 1, 1986, Crow shall cause a
limited partnership to be formed for the purpose of
acquiring the Development Property and constructing the
Crow Project, and Crow shall thereupon assign to the
limited partnership all of Crow's rights and
obligations under this Agreement. As part of the
-8-
}
assignment, the limited partnership shall agree to be
bound by, and fully perform, all of the terms and
conditions of the Agreement. A copy of the executed
form of assignment and assumption shall be delivered to
the HRA. The general partners of the limited
partnership, at the time of the assignment, shall have
a total net worth of not less than $25,000,000.
(c) Crow will construct, operate and use the
Improvements upon the Development Property in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Plan
and all local, state and federal laws and regulations.
(d) Neither the execution and delivery of this
Agreement, the consumation of the transactions
contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or
compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement is prevented or limited by, or in conflict
with or will result in a breach of, the terms,
conditions or provisions of the Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws of Crow, as amended, or any
indenture, mortgage, agreement or instrument of
whatever nature to which Crow is now a party or by
which it is bound, or will constitute a default under
any of the foregoing.
(e) There are no legal proceedings pending, or
known to be threatened or contemplated, to which Crow
is a party, or to which any property of Crow is subject
(other than routine litigation incident to the kind of
business conducted by Crow) which, if determined
adversely to Crow, would individually or in the
aggregate have a material adverse affect on the
financial position of Crow, or prevent or impair its
ability to perform any covenants or obligations under
this Agreement.
(f) Crow has delivered to the HRA copies of its
most recent financial statements, which Crow certifies
are true and complete. Upon the assignment of this
Agreement by Crow to the limited partnership, as
described in (b) above, each of the general partners
shall make available for review by the HRA at First
National Bank of Minneapolis (the "Bank ") a copy of his
current personal financial statement which shall be
certified by him as being true and complete. Such
personal financial statements shall be kept
confidential by the HRA and shall not become part of
the public record on this matter or be made available
to the public. No copies shall be made by the HRA and
the original copies shall be retained at the Bank. At
such time, the Bank shall also deliver a letter to the
HRA in which it agrees to retain all of such financial
-9-
statements until the Certificate of Completion is
issued and to deliver copies of such financial
statements to the HRA at such time as the HRA gives the
Bank written notice that a default exists under this
Agreement which has not been cured within the time
provided, if any, under this Agreement.
(g) Crow will act in good faith and use its best
efforts to obtain all required consents and approvals
for construction of the Improvements, including the
Planned Unit Development approval from the City, and
Crow will comply with all reasonable requirements
imposed as conditions for such consents and approvals
even if such requirements involve changes to the
Development Plans.
(h) Crow shall act in good faith and use its best
efforts in negotiating an agreement with the developer
under the Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills
(Embassy Suites) on matters relating to design,
construction, and operation of their respective
projects, and for the provision of parking by Crow to
such other developer.
The above representations and warranties are true and complete
as of the date hereof, shall be true and complete as of the date
of closing, and shall survive the closing.
ARTICLE III
Title and Other Matters
Section 3.1. Marketable Title The HRA agrees, with
respect to the Development Property, to furnish to Crow within
forty -five (45) days from and after the execution hereof, a
commitment for the issuance of an owner's ALTA policy of title
insurance issued by a title insurance company selected by Crow
showing marketable title in present owners subject only to the
following:
(a) Building, zoning and similar laws and
ordinances.
(b) Mineral rights reserved to the State of
Minnesota.
(c) Easements of record which will not interfere
with Crow's proposed development and use of the
property, in Crow's reasonable determination.
(d) The lien of current real estate taxes.
-10-
r
(e) Other restrictions, if any, expressly agreed
to by Crow, including those restrictions and
reversionary rights contained in this Agreement.
(f) Rights of present fee owners which the HRA
shall terminate prior to Closing Date.
The commitment shall include searches for bankruptcies;
state and federal judgments; tax and other liens; and for all
special assessments, levied, pending and approved by the City,
or deferred. The commitment shall include full mechanic's lien
coverage, shall delete any exceptions for the rights of parties
in possession and survey matters, and shall include copies of
all documents referred to therein. The cost and expense of the
title commitment (and the update described below) and the title
Policy, based upon the Purchase Price only, shall be paid by the
HRA. Any other title costs or policies shall be paid by Crow.
Crow shall be allowed thirty (30) days after receipt of
such commitment to make objections thereto, such objections to
be made in writing or deemed waived. The HRA shall be permitted
ninety (90) days from and after the date of such objections to
cure the same and the HRA hereby undertakes to cure such
defects. If such title objections cannot be cured within ninety
(90) days, or such longer period as is agreed to by Crow, and
Crow does not waive such objections, then Crow shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice
thereof to the HRA.
The HRA shall furnish Crow with a current update of the
commitment during June of 1986. Crow shall be allowed seven (7)
days after receipt of such update to make objections thereto,
such objections to be made in writing or deemed waived. The HRA
shall be permitted thirty (30) days from and after the date of
such objections to cure the same and the HRA hereby undertakes
to cure such defects. If such title objections cannot be cured
within thirty (30) days, or such longer period as is agreed to
by Crow, and Crow does not waive such objections, then Crow
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving
written notice to the HRA.
Section 3.2. Survey, Replatting and Soil Analysis
Crow shall, within a reasonable time prior to Closing Date,
obtain from a registered land surveyor a boundary line survey
showing the Development Property to the nearest hundredth of a
square foot, and also showing all easements of record or in
use. Crow shall also, at its own expense, plat or replat the
property where determined necessary by the City for the purpose
Of simplifying -future descriptions and to obviate the need for
future references to the Plan. Any such platting or replatting
shall not be a condition of closing.
-11-
�
The HRA or its designee, which may be Crow, as soon as
Practicable after the execution of this Agreement, and not later
than 30 days after the HRA becomes legally entitled to enter
upon the Development Property for the purpose, shall perform a
reasonably complete soil analysis of the Development Property.
The HRA Director shall consult with Crow in advance concerning
the nature and scope of the soil analysis and Crow shall pay the
cost of the soil analysis. Within 30 days following its receipt
of the results of the soil analysis, Crow shall deliver a copy
of the results to the HRA. Failure to deliver such results
shall be deemed to be acceptance by Crow of soil conditions as
shown in the analysis and a waiver of Crow's right to terminate
this Agreement as provided in Section 12.1(d). In the event
Crow reasonably determines, based upon the results of the soil
analysis, that construction of the Improvements is not
practicable due to existing soil conditions or due to the
presence of hazardous waste located on the Development Property,
Crow shall have the option of
P terminating his Agreement w'
9 g within
30 days following its is receipt of the results of the soil
analysis. Such termination shall also have the effect of
terminating the Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills
(Embassy Suites). The cost of any soil analysis and soil
correction shall be solely Crow's.
Section 3.3. Real Estate Taxes and Special
Assessments The real estate taxes due and payable on the
Development Property in the year of closing shall be prorated
between the parties as of the Closing Date on a calendar year
basis. If part or all of the Development Property is part of a
larger tax parcel, taxes shall be allocated to the Development
Property pro rata based upon square footage. The HRA shall pay
in full all special assessments against the Development Property
which are levied, pending and approved by the City, or deferred
as of closing. Crow shall pay all subsequent real estate taxes
and installments of special assessments payable therewith.
Section 3.4. Deed Upon tender of the Purchase Price
by Crow on the Closing Date, the HRA shall deliver to Crow a
limited warranty deed describing the Development Property in the
form attached as Exhibit G (the "Deed "). The Deed shall be
subject to the Permitted Encumbrances, all buildings and zoning
laws and ordinances and all other local, state, and federal laws
and regulations, the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and
such other encumbrances as the HRA and Crow shall mutually
agree. The Deed shall contain a forfeiture clause providing for
revestin f
o title in
g the HRA upon the occurrence of an Event of
Default a
s defined d in Section 10.1 hereof) and expiration of
any period to cure such Event of Default provided in Section
10.2 hereof prior -to issuance of the Certificate of Completion.
The Purchase Price shall be due and payable in full at closing
in cash, or by cashier's or certified check. Delivery of the
Deed shall not cause termination of any provisions of this
Agreement or the Assessment Agreement, except where expressly
-12-
Y
t
provided in such agreements. Except as provided in Section 3.1,
all costs of the conveyance of the Development Property to Crow,
including any and all fees and charges relating to such
conveyance, and filing or recording fees and any and all other
taxes and charges payable in connection with such conveyance, if
any, shall be wholly borne by Crow. The HRA shall voluntarily
take no actions to encumber title, and shall not fail to take
any necessary action to prevent encumbrance of title except with
respect to Permitted Encumbrances to the Development Property,
between the date hereof and date of delivery of the Deed to Crow
by the HRA pursuant to this Section.
Section 3.5. Recording Crow shall cause the title
insurance company to promptly file the Agreement, the Deed, and
the Assessment Agreement in the office of the Hennepin County
Recorder. Crow shall pay all costs of recording.
Section 3.6. Environmental Reviews Promptly upon the
execution of this Agreement, the HRA shall retain consultants
(after consultation with Crow) to prepare any environmental
assessment worksheet or other environmental assessments or other
statements required for the construction by Crow of the proposed
improvements and to apply for an indirect source permit from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The consultant's reasonable
cost, subject to a maximum of $55,000, shall be paid by the HRA
provided that, at the closing, Crow shall reimburse the HRA for
53.23 percent of the cost. In the event all necessary
environmental permits and approvals are not received by July 15,
1986, or result in the imposition of conditions not acceptable
to Crow in its reasonable determination, Crow may terminate this
Agreement. Such determination shall be made on or before
July 15, 1986 or Crow's right to terminate shall lapse.
Except with respect to a proposed development by MEPC
of a parcel located in St. Louis Park in close proximity to the
Development Property, the HRA is aware of no state or federal
claim filed or planned to be filed by any party relating to any
violation of any local, state or federal environmental law,
regulation or review procedure, nor is the HRA aware of any
violation of any local, state or federal law, regulation or
review procedure which would give any person a valid claim under
the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act or other state or federal
environmental statute. The HRA agrees, in the event of any such
known action or claim, other than in connection with the MEPC
development described above, to defend or otherwise comply with
the requirements of any such law or court or administrative
order.
Section 3.7. Use Crow, and its successors and
assigns, shall devote the Development Property only to the uses
specified in this Agreement and in the Plan. There shall be no
unlawful discrimination by Crow in the use of the Development
-13-
Property on account of race, color, religion, sex, age, national
origin, or political affiliation. If the Plan is subsequently
amended in a material respect, such amendment shall not bind
Crow or the Development Property without Crow's consent, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
Section 3.8. Demolition Crow and the developer under
the Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills (Embassy Suites)
shall perform all demolition of existing structures and
improvements on that portion of the Redevelopment Area shown in
Exhibit B which is necessary to construct the Improvements, as
defined in each of their respective development agreements, at
their sole cost and expense, and in accordance with the
specifications attached as Exhibit H. Any changes in such
specifications must be approved by the HRA Director in advance.
The cost of such demolition must also be approved by the HRA
Director in advance. Approval by the HRA Director in this
matter shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Purchase Price
shall be reduced to reflect the cost of demolition hereunder.
The amount of the reduction in the Purchase Price shall be
computed by multiplying the total cost of the demolition for
that portion of the Redevelopment Area shown in Exhibit B
(subject to a maximum of $364,000) by .5323. In addition, the
HRA, at its sole cost and in conjunction with the City, shall
remove all railroad spurs on that portion of the Redevelopment
Area shown in Exhibit B.
Section 3.9. Condemnation In the event that title to
and possession of the Improvements or any material part thereof
shall be taken in condemnation or by the exercise of the power
of eminent domain by any governmental body or other person
(except the HRA) after closing but prior to Maturity Date, Crow
shall, with reasonable promptness after such taking, notify the
HRA as to the nature and extent of such taking. Upon receipt of
any condemnation award, Crow shall use the entire condemnation
award first to pay the reasonable costs and expenses of such
taking, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees
and appraisers' fees, and second to reconstruct the Improvements
(or, in the event only a part of the Improvements have been
taken, then to reconstruct such part) upon the Development
Property; or, if such reconstruction is impracticable and not in
furtherance of the purpose of the Plan and this Agreement, and
if the tax increments payable to the HRA with respect to the
then current market value of the remaining portion of the
Improved Parcel, as established by the Hennepin County Assessor,
will be less than 105 percent of the Tax Increment amount
specified in Section 5.3 hereof then, to the extent such
condemnation award is sufficient for such purposes, there shall
be paid to the HRA such an amount -to be applied to the
outstanding principal balance of the Tax Increment Bonds
applicable to the Development Property as may be necessary to
reduce the outstanding principal balance of such Bonds to an
amount, 105 percent of the remaining annual principal and
-14-
t
interest payable with respect to which would be not less than
the tax increments then available to the HRA with respect to the
Improved Parcel. Any remaining portion of the condemnation
award shall be paid to Crow.
Section 3.10. Signs. Provided that there is
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, Crow may
erect appropriate signs on the Development Property describing
the Crow Project and those persons or entities associated
therewith at such time as Crow or the HRA first becomes legally
entitled to possession of the
ert portion of the Development
Property y on which the signs shall be la
p ced.
Section 3.11. Future Proposals Provided that Crow
faithfully fulfills its obligations hereunder, the HRA shall
give Crow reasonable opportunity and consideration in connection
with proposals for the development of other parcels of land
within the Redevelopment Area, provided, however, that nothing
herein shall be construed to require the HRA to 'v
gi e Crow any
preference, particularly as to proposals presented by then
owners of parcels included within such proposals.
Section 3.12. No Subsidies The HRA shall not provide
any direct financial subsidies, including the issuance of tax
increment bonds, nor cooperate with the City in the City's
issuance of any tax increment bonds, to or for any person or
legal entity in connection with any office project to be located
within the entire portion of the Redevelopment Area north of
Interstate Highway 394, except in the case of office /warehouse
projects, special use office projects such as medical office
buildings, or office projects in which the owner occupies at
least 75 percent of the project. The HRA's obligations under
this Section shall not apply to any project for which
construction is commenced on or after the date which is 18
months after the Closing Date.
3.13. Hotel ption In the event that the Private
Development Agreement - Golden Hills (Embassy Suites) is entered
into and later terminated by the HRA as a result of a default by
the developer thereunder, Crow shall be given the option to
develop the project which is the subject of such agreement
according to the terms and conditions thereof or such other
reasonable terms and conditions as are imposed by the HRA.
Notice of Crow's right to exercise the option shall be given by
the HRA in writing within a reasonable time after the
termination of such agreement by the HRA, and Crow shall have 45
days thereafter to exercise the option. In the event such
option is exercised by Crow, Crow shall pay to the HRA, in cash
at the closing, $6.00 per square foot for the - underlying land
plus the fair market value of any improvements constructed on
the land. The foregoing option is subject to the rights of any
mortgagee and operation of the mortgage foreclosure laws in
connection with any mortgage to which the property is then
subject.
-15-
I�
ARTICLE IV
Construction of Improvements
Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements Crow
agrees that it will construct the Improvements on the
Development Property in conformance with the Preliminary Plans
and the approved Development Plans for the Improvements. Crow
agrees that the scope and scale of the Improvements to be
constructed shall not be significantly less than the scope and
scale of the Improvements as detailed and outlined in the
Preliminary Plans n
Y and
the
Development Plans.
Section 4.2. Plans
(a) Crow agrees to submit to the HRA, by
June 1, 1986, the Development Plans. The HRA shall
promptly approve the Development Plans provided that
they conform in all material respects to the
Preliminary Plans. The HRA agrees that approval shall
not be unreasonably withheld, and that it shall not be
delayed beyond the regular meeting of the HRA next
following delivery ery by Crow to the HRA of the
Development Plans, provided that such delivery is made
at least
1 Q days prior y p or to such meeting.
(b) If Crow desires to make any material change
in the Development Plans after their approval by the
HRA, Crow shall submit the proposed change to the HRA
for its approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed. If the Development
Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to
a the requirements of this Section 4.2 with respect to
such previously approved Development Plans, the HRA
shall approve the proposed change. Such change in the
Development
Plans
shall be deemed approved by the HRA
' unless rejected in writing within ten (10) days by the
HRA with a statement of
the HRA 's reasons for
A ,e such
rejection.
Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of
Construction. Provided that the City and the HRA have granted
timely approval of the Development Plans, and that Closing Date
has occurred by November 30, 1986, Crow shall commence
construction of the Improvements immediately after the Closing
Date. Crow shall substantially complete the construction of the
Improvements within 18 months after the commencement of
construction. If Closing Date has not occurred by November 30,
1986, due to reasons other than an Event of Default by Crow, the
times provided in the foregoing sentence shall be adjusted by
the parties in an equitable manner and in good faith. The times
provided herein for commencement and completion of various
stages g of construction shall be extended to the extent of any
-16-
T
Unavoidable Delays. All work with respect to the Improvements
to be constructed or provided by Crow on the Development
Property shall be in conformity with the Development Plans as
submitted by Crow and approved by the HRA.
Provided that there is satisfaction of all conditions
precedent, Crow agrees for itself, and every successor in
interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that
Crow, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and
diligently prosecute to completion construction of the
Improvements thereon; provided, however, that the Holder of the
First Mortgage shall not have any obligation to construct or
complete construction of the Improvements while in possession of
the Development Property pursuant to foreclosure, or conveyance
by Crow to the Holder of the First Mortgage in lieu of
foreclosure, except as provided in Section 8.3. Subsequent to
execution of this Agreement, and until certification of the
Improvements pursuant to Section 4.4, Crow shall make reports to
the HRA, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be
requested by the HRA, as to the actual progress of Crow with
respect to construction of the Improvements. Crow also agrees
that designated representatives of the HRA in the company of a
Crow representative may enter upon the Development Property
during the construction of the Improvements to inspect such
construction.
Section 4.4. Certificate of m
Co letion
(a) Promptly after completion of the Improvements
in accordance with the reement rovisions of this Agreement,
9
exclusive of interior tenant finishing of the office
building, the HRA will furnish Crow with a Certificate
of Completion, in substantially the form set forth in
Exhibit D attached hereto. The Certificate of
Completion shall be (and it shall be so provided in the
Certificate of Completion itself) a conclusive
determination of satisfaction and termination of the
(a) agreements and covenants in this Agreement with
respect to the obligations of Crow, and its successors
and assigns, to construct the Improvements, as the case
may be, and (b) of the HRA's right to re -enter and take
possession of the Development Property and to terminate
and revest in the HRA title to the Development Property.
(b) If the HRA shall refuse or fail to provide a
Certificate of Completion in accordance with the
provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the
HRA shall, within ten (10) days after written request
by Crow, provide Crow with a written statement,
indicating in adequate detail in what respects Crow has
failed to complete the Improvements in accordance with
the rovi
p sions of this Agreement,
or i
s otherwise
in
default under the terms of this Agreement, and what
-17-
measures or acts will be necessary, in the opinion of
the HRA, for Crow to take or perform in order to obtain
such Certificate of Completion.
Section 4.5. Interim
Letter of Credit As of the date
hereof,
Crow has delivered to the HRA a w'
t Crow's sole cost and
expense, an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of
$100,000, issued by a reputable bank and in a form previously
approved by the HRA. As specified in the letter of credit, the
HRA may draw upon it at any time upon an Event of Default as
defined in Section 10.1 hereof at or prior to Closing Date (but
only if such Event of Default is not cured within 10 days after
written notice thereof from the HRA to Crow for any Event of
Default other than Crow's failure to provide the letter of
credit required under Section 4.6 hereof, for which there shall
be no period to cure), in an amount equal to the HRA's
out -of- pocket costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
incurred in connection with the Crow Project. The letter of
credit shall provide for expiration on August 15, 1986. On
July 15, 1986, the letter of credit shall be returned to Crow,
provided that Crow has delivered to the HRA the $1,862,910
letter of credit required under Section 4.6. The letter of
credit provided by Crow under this Section shall be returned in
the event Crow terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 3.1
or Section 12.1. The HRA's rights with respect to the letter of
credit provided under this Section shall not limit any other
remedy to which it is entitled under this Agreement or at law or
equity, except as the HRA's damages are reduced by its recovery
under the letter of credit.
Section 4.6. Completion Letter of Credit On July 15,
1986, Crow shall deliver to the HRA, at Crow's sole cost and
expense, an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a bank
previously approved by the HRA with a face amount equal to
$1,862,910. Such letter of credit shall provide for expiration
on December 31, 1986. In the event Closing Date has not
occurred by November 30, 1986, Crow shall at that time provide
the HRA with a replacement letter of credit which shall extend
at least 30 days beyond the
Y Closing osing Date as projected by the
Parties, or Crow shall be in
default hereunder and the HRA may
immediately draw upon the letter of credit then in effect. At
the closing, Crow shall deliver to the HRA, at Crow's sole cost
and expense, an irrevocable letter of credit issued by
a bank
previously approved by the HRA with a face amount equal to
$4,166,250. Upon delivery at closing by Crow of the $4,166,250
letter of credit, the HRA shall surrender to Crow the $1,862,910
letter of credit delivered on July 15, 1986. At least 30 days
prior to the expiration of any $4,166,250 letter of credit
provided under this Section, Crow shall provide the HRA with a
replacement letter of credit which shall extend at least one
year beyond the expiration date of the letter of credit then in
effect or, if earlier, until a date which is 60 days beyond the
contractor's written estimated date for completion of the
-18-
Improvements, or Crow shall be in default hereunder with no
opportunity to cure and the HRA may immediately draw upon the
letter of credit then in effect. Any letter of credit delivered
under this Section shall guarantee completion of the
Improvements by Crow in accordance with the Development Plans,
and in accordance with Section 4.3. Any letter of credit
provided under this Section shall permit the HRA to draw upon it
for the full face amount thereof, upon the occurrence of an
Event of Default as defined in Section 10.1 of this Agreement
(but only after the expiration of any period to cure such Event
of Default provided in Section 10.2), or immediately in the
event Crow fails to comply with any obligation stated in this
Section with respect to replacement letters of credit. Crow's
obligation to maintain a letter of credit under this Section
shall terminate upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion
to Crow. The letters of credit provided by Crow under this
Section shall be returned in the event Crow terminates this
Agreement pursuant to Section 3.1 or Section 12.1. The HRA's
rights with respect to the letters of credit provided under this
Section shall not limit any other remedy to which it is entitled
under this Agreement or at law or equity, except as the HRA's
damages are reduced by its recovery under the letters of credit.
ARTICLE V
Assessment Agreement and Payment of Taxes
and Tax Increment
Section 5.1. Execution of Assessment Agreement Crow
agrees, upon closing, to execute and deliver an Assessment
Agreement to the HRA pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8, specifying the
Assessor's Minimum Market Value which shall be assessed upon the
Improved Parcel for calculation of real estate taxes pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.01, or any successor statute.
The Assessment Agreement shall be in form of Exhibit C attached
hereto and incorporated as a part of this Agreement.
Specifically, Crow shall agree that the land and all
improvements thereto comprising the Improved Parcel (including
any completed interior tenant finishings) with respect to which
any real estate taxes, or taxes in lieu thereof which are levied
or assessed and payable by Crow, shall be assessed to be of a
market value of no less than $5,854,839 on January 1, 1987,
$16,233,821 on January 1, 1988, and $16,500,000 on January 1,
1989, increased on and after January 1, 1989 by $65.00 for each
gross square foot of building improvements to the office
building ding (except for any walkway or other enclosed area outside
of the footprint Tint for
r the office building) in excess of 259,000
square feet. As provided in the Assessment Agreement, Crow's
obligations under this Article, and under the Assessment
Agreement, shall terminate at such time as the Tax Increment
Bonds have been paid in full.
-19-
Section 5.2. Payment of Taxes; Assessments, Etc
(a) Following the closing, Crow shall pay all
real property taxes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 272.01, or any successor statute, payable with
respect to the Improved Parcel and pursuant to the
provisions of the Assessment Agreement until Crow's
obligations under this Agreement have been assumed by
any other person with the written consent of the HRA
and pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
(b) Following the closing, Crow agrees to pay or
cause to be paid, before any fine, penalty, interest or
cost may be added thereto for the nonpayment thereof,
all real estate taxes, assessments, water, sewer and
other charges, which are assessed, levied, confirmed,
imposed and become a lien upon the Development Property
or any part thereof prior to maturity of the Tax
Increment Bonds. Crow agrees, upon request of the HRA,
to furnish to the HRA, within sixty (60) days after the
date when any imposition is payable pursuant to any
provision of this Section, official receipts of the
appropriate taxing or other authority, or other proof
satisfactory to the HRA, evidencing the payment thereof.
Crow may, at its expense, in its own name and in good
faith, contest any such taxes, assessments and other charges;
Provided, however, that the rights of Crow to seek
administrative or judicial review of the application of, or any
determination made pursuant to, any tax statute relating to the
taxation of real property contained on the Development Property,
shall be strictly subject to the restrictions contained in the
Assessment Agreement.
Section 5.3. Guarantee of Tax Increment If the tax
increment actually paid to the HRA with respect to the Improved
Parcel in any of the years set forth below, or which would have
been paid but for operation of Minnesota's fiscal disparities
law, as amended, is less than 53.23 percent of the tax increment
amount specified below for such year or years, Crow shall pay to
the HRA all of such shortfall in an amount not to exceed 13.3
percent of the debt service amount set forth below for the year
indicated, in cash, within 30 days of Crow's receipt of written
notice from the HRA specifying the amount of the shortfall and
the amount required to be paid by Crow under this Section. Any
amount payable by Crow hereunder in any year will be reduced to
the extent by which the tax increment paid under the Assessment
Agreement and the Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills
(Embassy Suites) -in the same year exceeds 46.77 percent of the
tax increment amount specified below for the applicable year.
Crow's obligation under the foregoing guarantee shall be
absolute and unconditional, irrespective of any defense or any
rights of set -off, recoupment, or counterclaim which Crow might
-20-
otherwise have against the HRA or any other legal person.
Crow's obligation under the foregoing guarantee shall terminate
at Maturity Date.
Debt Service Tax Increment
Year Amount Amount
1986 617,517 0
1987 529,300 0
1988 529,300 300,000
1989 699,300 11000,000
1990 720,870 11000,000
1991 724,675 11000,000
1992 726,900 11000,000
1993 727,545 11000,000
1994 726,610 11000,000
1995 729,095 11000,000
1996 729,605 11000,000
1997 733,140 11000,000
1998 734,305 11000,000
1999 738,100 1,000,000
2000 739,130 11000,000
2001 742,395 11000,000
2002 747,500 1,000,000
2003 749,050 11000,000
2004 752,045 11000,000
2005 766,090 11000,000
ARTICLE VI
Insurance
Section 6.1 Insurance
. (a) Crow will provide and maintain or cause to be
maintained at all times during the process of
constructing the Improvements and, from time to time at
the request of the HRA, furnish the HRA with proof of
payment of premiums on:
(i) Builder's risk insurance, written on the
so- called "Builder's Risk Completed Value Basis ",
in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100 %)
of the full replacement cost of the Improvements
at the date of completion, with a deductible
amount of not more than $25,000, and with coverage
available in nonreporting form on the so- called
"all risk" form of policy;
(ii) Comprehensive general liability
insurance (including operations, contingent
liability, operations of subcontractors, completed
operations and contractual liability insurance)
-21-
together with an Owner's and Contractor's
Protective Policy with limits against bodily
1n3ury and property damage of not less than
$10,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the
above - required limits, an umbrella excess
liability policy may be used). The interest of
the HRA shall be protected in accordance with a
clause in form and content satisfactory to the
HRA; and
(iii) Worker's compensation insurance, with
statutory coverage.
The policies of insurance required pursuant to
clauses (i) and (ii) above shall be in form and
substance satisfactory to the HRA and shall be placed
with financially sound and reputable insurers licensed
to transact business in the State. The policy of
insurance required pursuant to clause (i) above shall
contain an agreement of the insurer to give not less
than thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the
HRA and Crow in the event of cancellation of such
policy or change affecting the coverage thereunder.
(b) Upon completion of construction of the
Improvements and prior to Maturity Date, Crow shall
maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and
expense, and from time to time at the request of the
HRA shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums on
insurance as follows:
(i) Insurance against loss and /or damage to
the Improvements under a policy or policies
covering such risks as are ordinarily insured
against by similar businesses, including (without
limiting the generality of the foregoing) fire,
extended coverage, vandalism and malicious
mischief, explosion, water damage, demolition
cost, debris removal, and collapse in an amount
not less than 90 percent of the full replacement
cost of the Improvements, but any such policy may
have a deductible amount of not more than
$25,000. No policy of insurance shall be so
written that the proceeds thereof will produce
less than the minimum coverage required by the
preceding sentence, by reason of co- insurance
provisions or otherwise, without the prior consent
thereto in writing by the HRA. The term "full
insurable replacement value" shall mean the actual
replacement cost of the Improvements (excluding
land costs, foundation and excavation costs, and
other uninsurable items) and equipment.
-22-
t
(ii) Comprehensive general public liability
insurance, including personal injury liability for
injuries to persons and /or property, including any
injuries resulting from the operation of
automobiles or other motorized vehicles on or
about the Development Property, in the minimum
amount for each occurrence of $5,000,000.
(iii) Worker's compensation insurance
respecting all employees of Crow in amounts not
less than the minimum required by statute.
(c) All insurance required in this Article VI
shall be taken out and maintaineddin responsible
insurance companies selected by Crow which are
authorized under the laws of the State to assume the
risks covered thereby. At the first time that any
insurance is required to be in effect hereunder, Crow
will deposit with the HRA certificates or binders of
the respective insurers evidencing the fact that Crow
has obtained such insurance. Unless otherwise provided
in this Article VI, each policy shall contain a
provision that the insurer shall not cancel or modify
it or allow it to lapse without giving written notice
to Crow and the HRA at least thirty (30) days before
the cancellation, modification, or lapse becomes
effective. Upon the HRA's request, Crow shall furnish
the HRA evidence satisfactory to the HRA that any
policy required hereunder remains in effect. In lieu
of separate policies, Crow may maintain a single
policy, or blanket or umbrella policies, or a
combination thereof, which provide the total coverage
required herein, in which event Crow shall deposit with
Authority a certificate or certificates of the
respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in
force upon the Improvements.
(d) In the event the Improvements or any portion
thereof is destroyed by fire or other casualty, then
Crow shall within thirty (30) days after such damage or
destruction, commence to repair and reconstruct the
damaged Improvements to substantially the same or
improved condition or utility value as they existed
prior to the event causing such damage or destruction
and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair
and reconstruction, Crow will apply the Net Proceeds of
any insurance relating to such damage or destruction to
the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof.
Crow shall complete the repair and reconstruction of
the Improvements, whether or not the Net Proceeds of
insurance received by Crow for such purposes are
sufficient to pay for the same. Any Net Proceeds
remaining after completion of such repairs and
-23-
S
reconstruction shall be disbursed to Crow, subject to
the rights of the Holder of the First Mortgage.
ARTICLE VII
Undertakinqs of the HRA; Tax Increment Bonds
Section 7.1. Acquisition and Sale of Development
Property; Relocation As consideration for the purchase of the
Development Property and construction of the Improvements by
Crow, the HRA agrees, subject to the provisions of Section 7.2
below, to complete the following actions:
(1) Immediately commence acquisition of the
Development Property and subsequently sell the
Development Property to Crow; and
(2) As soon as practicable, relocation of all existing
tenants and residents on the Development Property
in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters
462 and 117.
(3) Installation of only the following public
improvements to the extent they affect the
Development Property: burying power lines, street
lighting, construction of temporary access roads,
and provision of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and
water utility to the site. Such installation
shall be done in a timely manner and pursuant to
construction plans reviewed by Crow. The cost of
such public improvements shall be paid by the HRA
and shall not be assessed against the Development
Property. There shall be no assessments against
the Development Property for any street
construction or improvement caused by the
construction of Interstate 394, or by the Crow
Project, or by the project being constructed by
the developer under the Private Development
Agreement - Golden Hills (Embassy Suites).
(4) Subject to applicable statutes, issuance of Tax
Increment Bonds to partially finance its public
development costs.
Section 7.2. Limitations on Financial Undertakings of
the HRA The provisions of Section 7.1 of this Agreement
notwithstanding, the HRA shall have no obligation to Crow under
this Agreement to issue the Tag Increment Bonds, or to acquire
the Development Property, or perform relocation of residents and
tenants with respect to the Development Property, or to sell the
Development Property to Crow, except upon existence of the
following conditions:
-24-
(i) Crow has satisfied all conditions precedent
then required under this Agreement;
(ii) Crow is not, and does not become, in default
under Article X of this Agreement, and is and continues
in compliance with all material terms and conditions off
this Agreement;
(iii) The HRA is able to acquire all of the
Development Property, and the Development Property
defined in the Private Development Agreement - Golden
Hills (Embassy Suites), for a total cost, including
related fees and expenses, of not more than $6,000,000,
provided that Crow, and /or the developer under the
Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills (Embassy
Suites), may pay any excess on behalf of the HRA and
remove this condition, but without creating any
obligation of the HRA to Crow or any other person, and
without causing any reduction in the Purchase Price; and
(iv) The HRA and Crow have received all necessary
approvals from the City, the County Assessor and other
authorities to implement this Agreement.
The HRA shall give Crow prompt notice at such time as
it determines that the condition described in (iii) will not be
satisfied. If the HRA has not given Crow notice, on or before
the Closing Date, that the condition described in (iii) has not
been satisfied and that this Agreement shall be terminated, the
condition shall lapse.
Section 7.3 HRA to Maintain Existence The HRA
covenants and agrees that it shall at all times do or cause to
be done all things within its statutory powers necessary to
preserve and keep in full force and effect its existence, or to
assure the assumption of its obligations under this Agreement
and the Development Agreement by any public body succeeding to
its powers.
ARTICLE VIII
Mortgage Financing
Section 8.1. Approval of Mortgage Any First Mortgage
which will become a lien against the Development Property shall
require the prior written approval of the HRA's regular
attorney. Allen D. Barnard is presently the HRA's regular
attorney. Crow may rely upon any approval granted hereunder by
the HRA's regular attorney without additional action by the
HRA. Approval hereunder shall not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed, and shall be given if:
-25-
(a) the HRA's regular attorney first receives a
copy of all mortgage documents; and
(b) the HRA's regular attorney determines that
the terms of the Mortgage conform and are subject to
the terms of this Article.
Subject to the foregoing, Crow shall have the right to
mortgage the Development Property to any Holder of the First
Mortgage or to separate Holders of separate parcels. Such
mortgage shall not obligate the Holder of the First Mortgage to
undertake or continue construction or completion of the
Improvements except upon express assumption of such obligation
as provided in the preceding paragraph, provided that nothing in
this Section or in any other section of this Agreement shall be
deemed or construed to permit any Holder to devote the
Development Property or any portion thereof to any use, or to
construct any improvement, other than those uses or improvements
permitted by this Agreement, or to avoid any obligations under
this Agreement. Further, any party who obtains any interest in
all or any portion of the Development Property from or through
any Holder, whether through foreclosure sale or otherwise, shall
be strictly subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, and the Deed, as such are binding on Crow, and such
party shall not be entitled to any additional rights or
privileges granted a Holder hereunder.
Section 8.2. Notice of Default; Copy to Mortgagee
Whenever the HRA shall deliver any notice or demand to Crow with
respect to any breach or default by Crow in its obligations or
covenants under this Agreement, the HRA shall at the same time
forward a copy of such notice or demand to each known Holder of
any First Mortgage at the last address of such Holder shown in
the records of the HRA.
Section 8.3. Mortgagee's Option to Cure Defaults
After any breach or default referred to in Section 8.2 hereof,
each such Holder shall (insofar as the rights of the HRA are
concerned and subject to any rights of the Mortgagor under such
Mortgage) have the right, at its option, for a period of 60
days, to cure or remedy such breach or default and to add the
cost thereof to the Mortgage debt and the lien of its Mortgage.
g ge.
However, if the r
b each or default is with respect to
construction of the Improvements, nothing contained in this
P 9
Section or any other Section of this Agreement shall be deemed
to permit or authorize such Holder, either before or after
foreclosure or action in lieu thereof, to undertake or continue
the construction or completion of the Improvements (beyond the
extent necessary to conserve or protect Improvements) without
first having expressly assumed the obligation to the HRA, by
written agreement reasonably satisfactory to the HRA, to
complete, in the manner provided in this Agreement and in
conformance with the Development Plans, the Improvements on the
-26-
Development Property. Any such Holder who shall properly
complete the Improvements relating to the Development Property
shall be entitled, upon written request made to the HRA, to a
certification by the HRA to such effect in the manner provided
in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.
Section 8.4. HRA's Option to Cure Default on
Mortgage Any Mortgage executed b Crow with respect to th e
Y
P
Development Property, or any improvements thereon, shall provide
that in
the event that Crow is in default under any Mortgage
authorized pursuant to this Article VIII, the mortgagee, at such
time as it notifies Crow of such default or otherwise commences
any action against Crow in connection with such default, shall
notify the HRA in writing of:
(a) the fact of the default;
(b) the elements of the default; and
(c) the actions required to cure the default.
The HRA shall have the right to cure any such default,
within 60 days after notice from Holder and after notice to Crow
of its intent to so cure. In the event of such cure prior to
the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the HRA shall
thereupon be entitled, in addition to and without limitation
upon any other rights or remedies to which it may be entitled,
to reimbursement from Crow or any successor or assignee of any
costs and expenses incurred by the HRA in curing such default.
Interest shall accrue on any amounts due the HRA under this
paragraph at the reference rate of interest then in effect at
First National Bank of Minneapolis until such amounts are paid,
and such amounts shall result in the creation of a lien on the
Development Property in favor of the HRA, subordinate to the
lien of any First Mortgage.
Section 8.5. Subordinate Liens Crow agrees that it
will not create, incur, assume or suffer any security interest,
mortgage, pledge, lien, charge, or encumbrance upon the
Development Property except for a First Mortgage permitted under
this Article and except for the Permitted Encumbrances.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, following the issuance of the
Certificate of Completion, Crow may grant a second mortgage on
the Development Property with the consent of the HRA, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
ARTICLE IX
Restrictions on Transfer; Indemnification
Section 9.1. Restrictions on Transfer Until the
Certificate of Completion has been issued, this Agreement and
all or any portion of Crow's interest in the Development
-27-
Property may be assigned at any time by Crow as permitted under
Article VIII or to a partnership of which the general partners
at all times have a total net worth of at least $25,000,000, and
provided that the partnership agrees in writing with the HRA,
for itself and its successors and assigns, to be bound by the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Deed, the Assessment
Agreement, and the Plan, and not to transfer, mortgage or
otherwise convey any portion of the Development Property except
as permitted herein. Until the Certificate of Completion has
been issued by the HRA, this Agreement and Crow's interest in
the Development Property may.not otherwise be assigned by Crow
without the consent of the HRA.
After the Certificate of Completion has been issued by
the HRA, but prior to Maturity Date, this Agreement and all or
any portion of Crow's interest in the Development Property may
be sold, transferred, or conveyed by Crow, provided that the
purchaser, as of the date of such transfer, is reasonably
determined by the HRA to be of sufficient financial condition,
reputation and experience to fully perform under this Agreement
and the Assessment Agreement and provided that the purchaser
agrees in writing with the HRA, for himself, his heirs,
representatives, successors and assigns, to be bound by the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Deed, the Assessment
Agreement, and the Plan, and not to transfer, mortgage or
otherwise convey any portion of the Development Property except
as permitted herein. In the event of such agreement by the
purchaser, Crow shall be released from any obligation or
liability hereunder to the extent of the interest purchased.
After the Certificate of Completion has been issued by the HRA,
but prior to Maturity Date, this Agreement and all or any
portion of Crow's interest in the Development Property may be
sold, transferred, or conveyed by Crow free of the foregoing
conditions, but, in such event, Crow shall remain primarily
liable for performance of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement and the Assessment Agreement.
The parties agree that the terms and conditions hereof
run with the land and shall be binding upon their successors and
assigns until Maturity Date.
Nothing contained in this Section 9.1 shall be deemed
to prevent the leasing of the Improvements.
Section 9.2. Indemnification Crow hereby agrees to
defend and hold the HRA, and its officials, employees and
agents, harmless against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits,
judgments, damages, penalties, costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of actions or omissions
by Crow, its employees and agents, in connection with the Crow
Project. The HRA also agrees to defend and hold Crow, and its
employees and agents, harmless against any and all claims,
demands, lawsuits, judgments, damages, penalties,
-28-
costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
arising out of actions or omissions by the HRA, its officials,
employees and agents, in connection with the Crow Project.
ARTICLE X
Events of Default
Section 10.1. Events of Default Defined The
following shall be "Events of Default" under this Agreement and
the term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in
this Agreement, any one or more of the following events:
(a) Failure by Crow to pay the Purchase Price and
otherwise perform at closing.
(b) After Closing Date and until Maturity Date,
failure by Crow to timely pay all real property taxes,
assessments or other charges assessed with respect to
the Development Property.
(c) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, failure by
Crow to commence and complete construction of the
Improvements pursuant to the terms, conditions and
limitations of Article IV of this Agreement.
(d) Until Maturity Date, failure by Crow to
substantially observe or perform any material covenant,
condition, obligation or agreement on its part to be
observed or performed under this Agreement.
(e) Until the Certificate of Completion has been
issued, filing by Crow in any court, pursuant to any
federal or State statute, of a petition in bankruptcy
or insolvency, or for reorganization, or for the
appointment of a receiver or trustee of all or a
portion of Crow's property, or an assignment by Crow
for the benefit of creditors.
(f) Until the Certificate of Completion has been
issued, filing against Crow in any court, pursuant to
any federal or State statute, of a petition in
bankruptcy or insolvency, or for reorganization, or for
appointment of a receiver or trustee of all or a
portion of Crow's properties, if such proceeding is not
dismissed within ninety (90) days after commencement
thereof.
(g) Until the Certificate of Completion has been
issued, commencement by the Holder of any Mortgage of
foreclosure in the event of a default in any of the
terms or conditions of the Mortgage.
-29-
i
(h) Until the Certificate of Completion has been
issued, any merger, consolidation, liquidation,
reorganization or transfer of substantially all of
Crow's assets other than in the ordinary course, unless
the resulting entity is determined by the HRA in its
sole discretion to be of h
t e same greater e o g to financial
condition as Crow.
Section 10.2. Remedies on Default Whenever any Event
of Default occurs, the HRA, subject to any rights of the Holder
of the First Mortgage agreed to by the HRA pursuant to this
Agreement, or otherwise by written, executed instrument of the
HRA, may take any one or more of the following actions, (but
only after provision of sixty (60) days' written notice to Crow
in the case of an Event of Default under Section 10.1(a), (b),
(c), or (d), and then only if such an Event of Default has not
been cured within said sixty (60) days or, if such an Event of
Default cannot be cured within sixty (60) days, Crow does not
provide assurances to the HRA reasonably satisfactory to the HRA
that such an Event of Default will be cured as soon as
reasonably possible and that it will not jeopardize the purposes
of this Agreement and of the Plan):
(a) The HRA may suspend its performance under the
Agreement until it receives assurances from Crow,
deemed adequate by the HRA, that Crow will cure its
default and continue its performance under the
Agreement.
(b) If the Event of Default occurs prior to
Closing Date, the HRA may cancel and rescind the
Agreement.
(c) If the Event of Default occurs after Closing
Date but prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Completion, the HRA may reenter and take possession of
the Development Property, and the HRA may exclude Crow
from possession of the Development Property and the
Improvements thereon. The HRA shall thereupon use its
best efforts and act in good faith to sell the
Development Property consistent with the provisions of
the Plan. Except in the case of a sale to the
developer under the Private Development Agreement -
Golden Hills (Embassy Suites) pursuant to the option
contained in such agreement, the HRA shall sell such
portion at the best price obtainable (provided such
sale is permitted by applicable law), such sale to be
on such terms and conditions as the HRA deems
reasonable and appropriate to satisfy the provisions of
the Plan. The HRA shall apply the proceeds of any sale
first to reimburse the HRA for all costs and expenses
incurred by the HRA, including but not limited to
payment of all Tax Increment Bonds allocable to the
-30
Development Property (less any amount received by the
HRA from the letter of credit described in Section 4.6
hereof) taxes, assessments, utility charges, payments
made to discharge any encumbrances or liens, attorneys'
and consultants' fees and expenses; second to reimburse
Crow, its successors and assigns in an amount equal to
the Purchase Price for such portion plus other
reasonable costs incurred by Crow in connection with
the construction of such portion of the Improvements
(excluding overhead); and the balance to be retained by
the HRA.
(d) The HRA may initiate such action, including
legal or administrative action or a suit for specific
performance, as is necessary for the HRA to secure
performance of any provision of this Agreement or
recover any amounts due under this Agreement from Crow
or under any Letter of Credit.
(e) Sue for damages, including delinquent taxes
levied against the Development Property, provided that
any damages shall be reduced to the extent e t of any
amount recovered by the HRA under any letter of credit,
or to the extent performance of this Agreement is
completed pursuant to the Letter of Credit provided for
in Section 4.6 hereof.
Section 10.3. No Remedy Exclusive No remedy herein
conferred upon or reserved to the HRA is intended to be exclusive
of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every
such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every
other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter
existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission
to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall
impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a
waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised
from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient.
Section 10.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One
Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement
should be breached by any Party and thereafter waived by any
other Party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular
breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other
concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder.
ARTICLE RI
Additional Provisions
Section 11.1. Equal Employment Opportunity Crow
agrees that during the construction of the Project neither it
nor any of the contractors will unlawfully discriminate against
any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color,
-31-
religion, sex, age, national origin, or political affiliation.
Crow shall cause any general contractor selected by Crow to
present to the City's Human Rights Commission, in advance, its
plan to fulfill the requirements of this section.
Section 11.2. Not for Speculation Crow's purchase of
the Development Property, and its undertakings pursuant to this
Agreement, are and will be used for the sole and express purpose
of redevelopment of the Development Property and not for
speculation in land holdings.
Section 11.3. t
Titles of Articles and Section
Any
titles of the several parts, Articles and Sections of the
Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and
shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its
provisions.
Section 11.4. Notices and Demands Except as
otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand
or other communication under the Agreement by either party to
the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is in
writing dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage
prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and,
(a) in the case of Crow, is addressed to or
delivered personally to Crow at 8400 Normandale Lake
Boulevard, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55437, Attention:
Kirt Woodhouse, with copies to Mark Westra, 1000
Minnesota Mutual Life Center, 400 North Robert Street,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101; and
(b) in the case of the HRA, is addressed to or
delivered personally to the HRA to Housing and
Redevelopment Authority In and For the City of Golden
Valley, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley,
Minnesota 55428, Attention: Director, with copies to
Best & Flanagan, 3500 IDS Center, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402
or at such other address with respect to either such party as
that a
rt ma from time P Y e to 'm
Y time, designate w
g e in rating and
forward to the other as provided in this Section.
Section 11.5. Counterparts This Agreement is
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
Section 11.6. Modification If HRA is requested by
the Holder of a Mortgage or by a prospective Holder of a
prospective Mortgage to amend or supplement this Agreement, or
subordinate its interest hereunder to that of a Holder or
prospective Holder, in any manner whatsoever, the HRA will, in
good faith, consider the request with a view to granting the
-32-
same, provided that such request is consistent with the terms
and conditions of the Plan.
Section 11.7. Law Governing This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
Section 11.8. Severability In the event anv
provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other
provisions hereof.
Section 11.9 Duration This Agreement shall be
effective as of the date hereof and shall terminate on the
Maturity Date, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the
terms and conditions hereof. This Agreement shall survive
Closing Date and the HRA's delivery of the Deed to Crow.
Section 11.10 Contingency In addition to the
contingencies contained in Section 7.2, this Agreement shall have
no force or effect unless the Private Development Agreement -
Golden Hills (Embassy Suites) is executed by the HRA and the
developer of such project simultaneous with the execution of
this Agreement. In addition, this Agreement shall automatically
terminate if the Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills
(Embassy Suites) is terminated by the developer thereunder
within 40 days after the signing of such agreement based upon
the contingency relating to the location of the median cut on
Xenia Avenue.
ARTICLE XII
Termination of Agreement
Section 12.1. Crow's Options to Terminate This
Agreement may be terminated by Crow any time prior to Closing
Date if Crow is in compliance with all material terms of this
Agreement and no Event of Default has occurred; and
(a) Subject to Section 7.2, the HRA fails to
comply with any material term of this Agreement, and,
after written notice by Crow of such failure, the HRA
has failed to cure such non - compliance within ninety
(90) days of receipt of such notice, or, if such
non- compliance cannot reasonably be cured by the HRA
within ninety (90) days, the HRA has not, within ninety
(90) days of receipt of such notice, provided
assurances, reasonably satisfactory to Crow, that such
non - compliance will be cured as soon as reasonably
possible; or
-33-
(b) Closing has not occurred by November 30,
1986, unless extended by the parties; or
(c) Subject to Section 2.2(g), if Crow does not
receive all approvals and consents from governmental
authorities which are reasonably required for
construction of the Improvements; or
(d) Subject to Section 3.2, if Crow reasonably
determines that construction of the Improvements is not
practicable due to soil conditions or due to the
presence of hazardous waste on the Development
Property; or
(e) Subject to Section 3.6, if all necessary
environmental permits and approvals are not received by
July 15, 1986.
This Agreement may also be terminated by Crow if the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the
City, has not determined within 30 days after the date hereof to
place a median cut permitting a left turn from southbound Xenia
Avenue into the Development Property. Crow's option to
terminate shall be exercised within 10 days after the expiration
of such 30 -day period or it shall thereupon lapse.
Section 12.2. Effect of Termination If this
Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Article XII, this
Agreement shall be from such date forward null and void and cf
no further effect; provided, however, that termination of this
Agreement pursuant to this Article XII shall not affect the
rights of Crow to institute any action, claim or demand for
damages suffered as a result of breach or default of the terms
of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HRA has caused this Agreement to
be duly executed in its name and behalf and Crow has caused this
Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf, on or as
of the date first above written.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
GOLDEN VALL
By
Its
a,'r
By
Its ric or.
-34-
CROW MINNESOTA PROPERTIES, INC.
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
/ �The foregoing ins ,;ument was acknowledged before T this � day of 198 by /��� r_ �To
and ', //; a.,, S o Y., FS , the ��� ►^ �� and
'roc Tor of THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, on behalf of
the organization.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) !'. T •_.__. _
The foregoi�9 instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 198 by
the f r� ,, dN., T- of CROW MINNESOTA PROPERTIES, INC., a
Texas corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
41- {'
Notary Public
xtiti�,A
DRAFTED BY:
AL 6.4.R LP n ,
S., c! D. �,p
N T
AA `! PUBLIC - M1t 07A
1 ` J�Pit! CCllyTY
Best & Flanagan (CCB) MyCmnfr ,lss;unExp!res Oct. i6,1939
3500 IDS Center xY�1NYWw1 ,nnw�tivv�nrvwwwv
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
-35-
+! 0 _ i
GOLDEN HILLS REDEVELOPMENT .DISTRICT
M
X
:1:
f -I
CIl
H
H
l ( /t- - — — / _ / I1 (I REDEVELOPMENT PARCELS / ?;Q
.''..v . ^.�: f�., :�ti: ••' :'r:�' • 1 . 11 ' I 1 I «.. 'I. I.... 1 4..1 1..�1IL.., 1... (�� _ 1 er �
1 .` •'tip .,f . • - . ,. .. - . _ I .w•r.. `', 1' ` ^ I• fOR[ be" y ' - _ _ +._'•. `\ •� , •��, ,.
1 ti 1 ; ' 1
it <�' . : i(r �{pr ra : -1�1 , \` ?: {ti: :•� i:•.: .. r• t �+� C. .
u i.r :�; � _ '/,/ �-- _c.�.. - • f ' . � � '`' � i ` � _ t . r ' i ' i J1 ' . .•', � - -- ��•-� --i - - w. ^" - fs-
T j � • �•�•u. ,4� I'y .,��� I _ �.� 6 - - L � �` +~�z - 1 _ ' 1 ��'1 ` • '�a.. • .• _ .�, a, f Y "�_ a: - -_ _ � _ '•i L ;, - _
- - LPL— I + ..... V q t .., ..c: a..
�„� �q �. ... 1 ----" _ t off. - -- -- - „'�� - - .
'� ^ _ U, - _ - ----
EXHIBIT B
= t
1tM1A AVIMV�
e
z ,..,
r •
� O O
e
a
so° =F—z t
:0 -
i ^ _
f
• a—
� s—
�'�.{�
• Turi�•s�s��o.o �
w•r nr'r u' '«•
• t
Legally described as follows:
That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the North 1/2 of Section 4,
Township 117, Range 21, lying Easterly of Xenia Avenue South
and Southezly of Lot A, Registered Land Survey No. 661,
Hennepin Countv, Minnesota, except that part to be taken by
the State of Minnesota for I -394 and Xenia Avenue South.
EXHIBIT C
ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, The Housing and
Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Golden Valley,
Minnesota, a public body corporate established pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et seg. (the "HRA "), and
Crow Minnesota Properties, Inc. a Texas corporation ( "Crow "),
hereby covenant and agree that the property described in
Exhibit C -I hereby and the improvements to be made thereto
pursuant to the Private Development Agreement- Golden Hills
(Trammell Crow) between the parties dated , 1985
(the "Development Property "), with respect to which any real
estate taxes (or taxes in lieu thereof) are levied or assessed
and payable by Crow, shall be assessed to be of a market value
of no less than $5,854,839 on January 1, 1987, $16,233,821 on
January 1, 1988, and $16,500,000 on January 1, 1989, increased
by $65.00 on and after January 1, 1989 for each gross square
foot of building improvements (except for any walkway or other
enclosed area outside of the footprint for the office building)
in excess of 259,000 square feet, (the "Assessor's Minimum
Market Value ").
Commencing with taxes payable in the year 1988 and
thereafter during the term of this Assessment Agreement, Crow
shall not seek a reduction of the market value of the
Development Property for property tax purposes below the
Assessor's Minimum Market Value stated above, regardless of
actual market values which may result from incomplete
construction of improvements to the Development Property, or
from destruction or diminution thereof by any cause, insured or
uninsured, except in the case of acquisition or reacquisition
of any portion of the Development Property by a public entity.
Upon execution by the parties, this Assessment
Agreement shall be presented to the Hennepin County Assessor,
or to the Golden Valley City Assessor having the powers of the
County Assessor, if any, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 273.76, Subd. 8 (1984), as hereafter amended (the
"Statute "). If this Assessment Agreement is approved and
certified by such Assessor in the form of attached Exhibit
C -II, this Assessment Agreement shall be filed, together with a
copy of the Statute (Exhibit C -III), in the office of the
Hennepin County Recorder or in the office of the Hennepin
County Registrar of Titles upon transfer of title of the
Property from the HRA to Crow.
The parties hereby covenant and agree that the
obligations imposed hereunder shall be the personal obligations
of the parties and shall also be deemed with respect to the
Development Property to be covenants and restrictions running
with the land, and shall constitute burdens and benefits to the
HRA and Crow, their successors, assigns, grantees and all other
parties hereafter owning or holding any interest in the
Development Property or any portions thereof.
This Assessment Agreement is effective as of the date
hereof and shall remain in force and effect until such time as
Tax Increment Bonds issued to finance the Development Property
(but not the refunding of such Bonds) are no longer outstanding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the
execution of this Assessment Agreement this day
of 19
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
By
Its
And
Its
CROW MINNESOTA PROPERTIES, INC.
B
Its
And
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of 198_, by
and , respectively the
and of The Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Golden Valley on behalf of the
Authority.
Notary Public
-2-
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 198_, by
of Crow Minnesota Properties, Inc., a Texas corporation, on
behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
BEST & FLANAGAN (CCB)
3500 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
-3-
EXHIBIT C -I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
To come
(Subject to verification b surv
Y)
PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES
To come
EXHIBIT C -II
Assessor's Certification
The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County, Minnesota,
hereby certifies that:
1. He is the assessor responsible for the assessment
of the Property described ed in the e for
e oin
9 9
Exhibit C -I.
2. He has read the foregoing Assessment Agreement;
3. He has received and read a copy of the Private
Development Agreement;
4. He has received and reviewed the architectural
and engineering plans and specifications for the
improvements agreed to be constructed on the
Development Property by Turner Development
Corporation pursuant to the Private Development
Agreement;
5. He has reviewed the market value previously
assigned to the Development Property upon which
such improvements are to be constructed; and
6. The undersigned assessor, being legally
responsible for the assessment of the above
described Development Property upon completion of
the improvements to be constructed thereon,
hereby certifies that the market value assigned
to such land and improvements upon completion
shall not be less than $
Dated 19
Director of Property Taxation
Hennepin County, Minnesota
EXHIBIT C -III
(1984) Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision 8
Sudb. 8, Assessment agreements. An authority may,
upon entering into a development or redevelopment agreement
pursuant to section 273.75, subdivision 5, enter into a written
assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer or
redeveloper of property within the tax increment financing
district which establishes a minimum market value of the land
and completed improvements to be constructed thereon until a
specified termination date, which date shall be not later than
the date upon which tax increment will no longer be remitted to
the authority pursuant to section 273.75, subdivision 1. The
assessment agreement shall be presented to the county assessor,
or city assessor having the powers of the county assessor, of
the jurisdiction in which the tax increment financing district
is located. The assessor shall review the p , e
lans and
specifications for the improvements to be constructed review
the market value previously assigned to
improvements are to be constructed and, so long d as P the w minimu he
. market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in
the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate,
shall execute the following certification upon such agreement:
The undersigned assessor, being legally
responsible for the assessment of the above
described property upon completion P P of the
improvements to be constructed thereon, hereby
certifies that the market value assigned to such
land and improvements upon completion shall not
be less than $
Upon transfer of title of the land to be developed or
redeveloped from h
P the authority to the developer or redeveloper,
such assessment agreement, 9 together with ith a
copy
of t h s
subdivision, shall be filed for record and recorded in
office of the county recorder or filed in the office of the
registrar of titles of the county where the real estate or an
part thereof is situated. Upon completion of the improvements
by the developer or redeveloper, the assessor shall value the
property pursuant to section 273.11, except that the market
value assigned thereto shall not be less than the minimum
market value contained in the assessment agreement. Nothing
herein shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign
market value to the property in excess of the minimum market
value contained in the assessment agreement nor prohibit the
developer or redeveloper from seeking, through the exercise of
administrative 'v
ti e
and legal remedies, emedies, a reduction in market value
for
property ax purposes; Y ses•
P P provided, however, that the
developer or redeveloper shall not seek, nor shall the city
assessor, the county assessor, the county auditor, any board of
review, any board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue
or any court of this state grant a reduction of the market
value below the minimum market value contained in the
assessment agreement during the term of the agreement filed of
record regardless of actual market values which may result from,
incomplete construction improvements, destruction or diminution.
-by any cause, insured or uninsured, except in the case of
acquisition or reacquisition of the property by a public
entity. Recording or filing of an assessment agreement
complying with the terms of this subdivision shall constiute
notice of the agreement to any subsequent purchaser or
encumbrancer of the land or any part thereof, whether voluntary
or involuntary, and shall be binding upon them.
-2-
EXHIBIT D
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY (the "HRA "), a public body corporate, and
CROW MINNESOTA PROPERTIES, INC. ( "Crow "), a Texas corporation,
previously entered into a Private Development Agreement (the
"Agreement "), recorded in the Office of the County Recorder in
and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, as
Document Number , for the following described property:
Article IV of the Agreement contains certain covenants
which, if not performed by Crow, or its successors and assigns,
would result in a forfeiture and right of re -entry by the HRA,
its successors and assigns. As of the date hereof, Crow has
performed all of such covenants contained in Article IV of the
Agreement to the satisfaction of the HRA.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby certified that all building
construction and other physical improvements specified to be
completed by Crow have been so completed and all of the covenants
in Article IV of the Agreement have been duly and fully performed
by Crow and that the provisions for forfeiture of title and right
to re -entry by the HRA, and the letter of credit securing
performance of such covenants, are hereby released absolutely and
forever insofar as they apply to the property described above,
and the County Recorder in and for the County of Hennepin and
State of Minnesota is hereby authorized to accept for recording
and to record the filing of this instrument, to be a conclusive
determination of the satisfactory termination of (a) the
covenants of Article IV of the Agreement, and (b) the right of
the HRA to re -enter and take possession of the Development
Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the remaining covenants
contained in the Agreement and in the Limited Warranty Deed
between the parties (Document No. ) remain of full
force and effect.
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
GOLDEN VALLEY
By
Its
And
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of 198_, by
and respectively the
and of The Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Golden Valley, on behalf of the
Authority.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
BEST & FLANAGAN (CCB)
3500 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
-2-
EXHIBIT E
PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES .
A frontage or backaae road to the property and other
encumbrances to be supplied.
EXHIBIT F
y
cm
M"MTArt 364
t
�''�' A- �TrammelE�> Crow = :company:. Devetopme�,�:
s :REDEVEiOPMEt�lT`r -� � �, '. - �tsorrlJen $��Associates =r •
r [ !l3NNVld / 6g33MhN3 r 6Q31(H�tlt/
S �. °' ` J q�QO
JI A '� •
• f . !.. . ` .,. 1 S i•r �. i^ lPr. ♦ t 1 r ` r �)•
r. ,. sa�sj�ssd su!'�ua�'��0sRIM, �11Vd0/�C
•' 1 t ..p t f S p •r r. j�q�Tf �I.k ' OJ � .
l r
R N .-
.p. .� ! t ';4 � ,• ^4 ~' �� T,, : T�.•'•11�� t .. r •��. •j '
rl
•4
iii �i �i ii i� ii !� I� ii ii n u ii ii r � II �I I� II II it Ii L
�:' 1111 gMgA ■ ■qMq ■
' III �YNNYHIIYIIN ■� � r '�r.k
Y� �IlI ■pYpYYYHlipp w _*
' IIII ■■ ■pH Y11UNY11
p N11 M ■N ■ ■Y■
1111 app ■YN ■NN■
- -- -- -- - -- -- - N WIN
"'�';`t• 1111 ■ ■ ■Ilq ■ ■UIIY ■ ■���'�'���~
T � w , ,. ., 1111 ■IIN■pYYN ■� ■■ �� ��,` ?�'���.
r rx t ��. 1111 �ppppM ■pNw ■■
_ ■NNYNMIINNIIpM
�.�.' .�:•' ��il ■HpY1�HYN11YYp 111 = «� �.;1
I11�I1p■MNg1111VYH
Ak
�� y ".,. ��I�I11�111111111111�1�111 �11 ` r� "'°rtj
_ �' _ b. ✓ r t �"
• '. fi r ` • , d.y:�i. �� ':
�.'' • ^'.;, t. t '•.�:�' is
I nj � ; ��t •r r rs,. _ ,Y tip+.
r,a ,A> } ;; J ,� + r +'. •i r _ -fii y �� ♦ r': �, , {_. .. � ( 1 .Z ,�J
EXHIBIT F -3
Hotel Project Exterior Materials
Glass: Pewter reflective (vision and spandrel)
Transparent (Skylights and entry vestibules)
Limestone: Buff and gray (Base trim)
Brick: Endicott Medium Ironspot o ,- ,e ,
Mullions : Clear Anodized o,- (�r o - ze Q rod, ze
Metal Roof: Light Gray
t
EXHIBIT F -
Office Project Exterior Materials
Glass: Pewter reflective (Vision and Spandrel)
Transparent (Skylights and entry vestibules)
Granite: Prairie Mountain or equal
Polished (Tower cladding)
Flame cut (Pavers)
Limestone: Buff and gray (Base and Pedestrian Link)
Brick: Endicott Medium Ironspot (Parking Ramp) o,-
Mullions: Clear Anodized (� OhzC ��ad Z-
Metal Roof: Light Gray
EXHIBIT G
LIMITED WARRANTY DEED
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a
public body corporate created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 462.411 et seq ( "Grantor "), hereby grants, bargains and
conveys to CROW MINNESOTA PROPERTIES, INC., a Texas corporation
( "Grantee "), real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
described as follows (the "Property "):
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging
thereto. Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns,
hereby- covenants with Grantee and its successors and assigns,
that it has not made, done, executed, or suffered any act or
thing whatsoever whereby the Property, or any part thereof, now
or at any time hereafter, shall or may be imperiled, charged or
encumbered in any manner whatsoever, except for any covenants,
conditions, or restrictions contained in the Golden Hills
Redevelopment Plan adopted by Grantor in (the
"Plan "), and any covenants, conditions, or restrictions
contained in the Private Development Agreement - Golden Hills
(Trammell Crow), dated between Grantor and
Grantee (the "Agreement ").
Provided:
1. It is understood and agreed that this Deed is
subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and
provisions of the Agreement, and that Grantee shall not sell,
transfer, mortgage or otherwise convey the Property, or any part
thereof or interest therein, except as permitted by the
Agreement.
Grantee hereby covenants and agrees to begin and
diligently prosecute to completion the development of the
Property
at such
P Y times and as otherwise er i v'
se pro ided in the
Agreement. Promptly after completion of the improvements in
accordance with the Agreement, Grantor will furnish Grantee with
a Certificate of Completion, as provided in the Agreement, which
shall be the conclusive determination of satisfaction and
termination of the agreements and covenants in and pursuant to
the Agreement with respect to the obligations of Grantee to
construct the improvements, and the dates for the commencement
and completion thereof.
2. If the "Event of Default" by Grantee, as defined
in Section 10.1 of the Agreement, which is not cured within the
period provided in Section 10.2 of the Agreement, prior to the
recording of the Certificate of Completion, then Grantor shall
r
have the right to re -enter and take possession of the Property
and to terminate and revest in Grantor the estate conveyed by
this Deed to Grantee, as specified in the Agreement.
3• Grantee hereby agrees to do the following:
(a) Maintain insurance of such types and amounts
as specified in Article VI of the Agreement;
(b) Pay all real estate taxes and special
assessment on the Property when due and not
seek or cause a reduction in such taxes,
except as permitted under the Agreement;
(c) Devote the Property to only such uses as are
permitted under the Agreement.
The parties agree that the covenants contained in this
Section shall terminate at such time as the principal and
interest on any bonds for which tax increments on the Property
are pledged are paid in full, or 30 years from the date hereof,
whichever is earlier.
4. There shall be no discrimination in the use of the
Property by Grantee on account of race, color, religion, sex,
age, national origin, or political affiliation during the period
that the Plan remains in effect.
The parties agree that all of the covenants and
restrictions contained in this Deed shall be binding upon
Grantee, its successors and assigns, for the maximum benefit of
Grantor, its successors and assigns, and shall also be deemed to
run with the land.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused this Deed to be
duly executed on its behalf by its duly authorized
representatives this day of 1 lgg
THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF
GOLDEN VALLEY
By
Its
By
Its
-2-
i
M
t
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of b
and
respectively the and of
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Golden Valley, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Best & Flanagan (CCB)
3500 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
-3-
�
v
a�
EXHIBIT H
DEMOLITION
The professional wrecking by a licensed contractor of any building(s)/
structure(s) or manmad
e object(s).
It consists of the removal of all hazardous/
toxic waste materials from site to a licensed landfill area (licensed in the
disposal of toxic waste materials) prior to demolition work and shall apply
to, but not be limited to, asbestos, electrical transformer, PCBs and subsurface
tank leakage material.
All work shall be complete and include the capping or removal of existing
utilities, except those to be relocated, and the wrecking and removal of all
footings, foundations, floor slabs, subsurface tanks, buried utility lines sized
in excess of 6" in diameter, steps, stoops, private sidewalks, site lighting
poles, driveways and provide for a clean compacted (95% Proctor Density)
granular type fill in all excavations resulting from demolition.
All piping, heating plants, fuel storage tanks, appliances and other
debris shall be removed from site to a licensed landfill area.
All work shall be performed in conjunction with State, City and /or local
ordinances and reasonable restrictions.
o .
r
June 18, 1986
TO: Golden Valley Planning Commission
FROM: Alda Peikert, City Planner
SUBJECT: Informal Public Hearing - Preliminary Design Plan for PUD #53, The
Colonnade
Trammell Crow Company requests approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for PUD
#53, The Colonnade, which proposes construction of an office building and hotel
with shared parking ramp on present Highway 12 between Turners Crossroad and
Xenia Avenue South, future northeast quadrant of the I- 394 /Xenia Avenue inter-
change.
The official applicant for PUD Preliminary Design Plan approval is the City of
Golden Valley, due to the fact that the developer does not yet own the develop-
ment site. Section 15.14 Paragraph 11 of the City PUD Ordinance allows the
City to act as petitioner for the PUD Preliminary Design Plan in cases where
the HRA has authorized acquisition of the subject property. The PUD Ordinance
requires HRA acquisition of the land prior to approval of the PUD General Plan
of Development, the second phase of the PUD application process.
Redevelopment Project Background
The proposed project is within the Golden Hills Redevelopment District estab-
lished by the HRA in October 1984 and is the subject of Development Agreements
concluded between the HRA and both Trammell Crow and Embassy Suites on March
12, 1986. The Development Agreement with Trammell Crow stipulates construction
of an office building approximately 15 stories in height with a minimum of
259,000 square feet of gross floor area and construction of a parking ramp with
a minimum of 1000 parking spaces and potential for the addition of 250 spaces
if required in the future. The Development Agreement with Embassy Suites
stipulates construction of a "luxury hotel" with a minimum of 243 suites.
Site Boundary Determination
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) plans for the future I- 394 /Xenia
Avenue interchange include a detached service road which will form the northern
boundary of the subject development site. MnDOT plans for acquisition of right -
of -way for the ramp off of I -394 onto Xenia Avenue and for the detached service
road are not yet finalized. Therefore, exact boundaries of the subject develop-
ment are not yet determined. For this reason, the developer has not yet surveyed
the development site.
Compliance with Preliminary Plat Requirements
The developer is unable to submit a Preliminary Plat as required with the PUD
Preliminary Design Plan due to lack of a final decision on MnDOT right -of -way
requirements. The developer will have the site surveyed and a Preliminary Plat
prepared after MnDOT finalizes I -394 plans and defines the right -of -way limits.
Informal Public Hearing - PUD #53, The Colonnade
June 18, 1986
Page 2
At this time the developer has submitted a sketch showing proposed division of
the site into four lots comprising the office building site, the hotel site,
the parking ramp site, and a separate parcel for the common area. The sketch
of the proposed plat is attached.
The PUD Preliminary Design Plan for PUD #53, The Colonnade, does not include
required components of the Preliminary Plat including grading, drainage and
utility plans. It is the opinion of the City Engineer that Preliminary Design
Plan review of the proposed PUD may occur without submittal of these engineering
plans. Due to the fact that initiation of the PUD approval process is necessary
at this time in order to meet the proposed project construction schedule, staff
suggests that the Planning Commission and City Council proceed with Preliminary
Design Plan review of PUD #53 without the Preliminary Plat and defer requirement
of the Preliminary Plat until the General Plan of Development stage of the PUD
approval process. Final approval of the PUD General Plan of Development may not
take place until MnDOT right -of -way limits for the I -394 construction project
are finalized and completion of an accurate survey of the project site is
possible.
Proposed Development
The development proposed in the PUD Preliminary Design Plan is expanded over
the minimum stipulated by Development Agreement. Embassy Suites proposes a
ten -story hotel with 243 suites, which is the same scale as the hotel contem-
plated in the Development Agreement with Embassy Suites. Trammell Crow,
however, proposes a fifteen -story office building with gross floor area of
409,000 square feet and net leasable area of 330,000 square feet. This is
considerably larger than the minimum 259,000 square foot gross area stipulated
in the Trammell Crow Development Agreement. The proposed parking ramp is five
levels providing for 1124 parking spaces. Potential for a sixth level provides
for an additional 225 to 230 parking spaces if required in the future. Total
parking with the addition of a sixth level would be approximately 1350 spaces.
This compares with a minimum of 1000 and potential for 250 additional stipu-
lated in the Trammell Crow Development Agreement.
The proposed development site is approximately seven acres in area including
the site of the vacant former Boulevard Restaurant building, the convenience
food store and closed gasoline station to the north, the multiple tenant Golden
Valley Business Center, and the Larsen -Olson Building. Right -of -way for the
proposed detached service road for future I -394 will require approximately the
northerly 70 feet of the Larsen -Olson property. The development site will be
surrounded on all four sides by street right -of -way, with the I -394 exit ramp
on the south, Xenia Avenue South on the west, the detached service road on the
north, and Turners Crossroad on the east.
Site coverage figures provided by the applicants indicate site coverage by
building and parking structure as 49 percent, coverage by interior street and
plaza as 13 percent, and coverage by pond and landscaping as 38 percent. The
City Zoning Code allows 40 percent coverage by building with an additional 20
percent coverage by parking structure. Therefore, the proposed project is in
conformance with site coverage guidelines in the Zoning Code.
Informal Public Hearing - PUD #53, The Colonnade
June 18, 1986
Page 3
The developer plans inclusion of retail and service uses compatible with office
use on the main level of the office building. Amenities under consideration for
inclusion in the office building include the following: Day care, health club,
restaurants, cafeteria, postal substation, banking facilities, a car wash,
convenience store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop, beauty shop
and tanning booth.
Building Height
Height of the proposed buildings is fifteen stories for the office building and
ten stories for the hotel. The adjacent shared parking ramp is approximately
equivalent to three stories in height. The height limitation imposed by the
Golden Valley Zoning Code is three stories in Residential, Commercial, Institu-
tional and Business and Professional Offices Zoning Districts. In Industrial
and Light Industrial Zoning Districts the height limitation is 45 feet. Greater
building height may be approved through either the Conditional Use Permit process
or the PUD process. Underlying zonings of parcels assembled to create the
subject office /hotel site are Commercial and Light Industrial.
The subject location is suitable for the ten and fifteen story heights proposed
in the PUD #53 Preliminary Design Plan. The location is adjacent to a future
major freeway interchange, which has stimulated plans for high rise development
in St. Louis Park as well as in Golden Valley. Surrounding land uses include
office /warehouse and office /manufacturing to the north and west and a commercial
shopping center across Turners Crossroad to the east. The properties most
affected would be residences on Turners Crossroad and Circle Down directly
across Turners Crossroad from the parking ramp located on the northerly portion
of the development site. The parking ramp, which is approximately three stories
in height as noted above, provides a barrier and balance to the taller hotel
and office buildings located beyond as viewed from the residential area.
Parking Provision
City Zoning Code requirements for parking space for the subject project are one
space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area in office use and one space
for every hotel unit. Strict adherence to Zoning Code provisions results in
requirement of 1636 parking spaces for office use and 243 spaces for hotel use
for a combined total of 1879 parking spaces required. Attached are parking
consultant studies for the proposed project contracted by both the HRA and by
Trammell Crow which recommend reduced parking requirements based on the high
quality of the office and hotel development proposed and based on the mixed use
nature of the project.
The study conducted by Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, Inc., for the HRA examines
traffic generation for a 280,000 square foot office building combined with a
300 suite hotel. Parking demand for the two uses together peaks between 8:00
and 9:00 AM at approximately 1100 spaces with 900 spaces required for the office
building and 200 spaces required for the hotel. Adjustment for the increased
office building size and decreased hotel size results in figures of 1315 spaces
for the office and 162 spaces for the hotel. The combined total at the peak
hour between 8:00 and 9:00 AM is 1477 spaces.
Informal Public Hearing - PUD #53, The Colonnade
June 18, 1986
Page 4
The study conducted by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc., at the direction of
Trammell Crow Company suggests parking ratios of 2.6 spaces per 1000 square
feet of leasable office space and .84 spaces per hotel room. The resulting
parking space requirement is 858 spaces for office use and 204 spaces for hotel
use for a total of 1062 spaces required. The 1124 parking space figure proposed
by the applicant is 62 spaces, or approximately six percent, over the number
required according to the study.
Staff finds the proposal for 1124 spaces acceptable only in view of the provi-
sion for addition of a sixth parking level which would add 225 to 230 spaces
for a total of approximately 1350 spaces. Due to the importance of parking
availability to the marketing of office space, staff feels comfortable with
reliance upon developer assessment of initial parking need and with developer
judgment on necessity and timing of addition of a sixth ramp level.
The developer proposes parking spaces eight and a half feet in width, narrower
than the nine feet required by the City Zoning Code. The City Engineer concurs
with use of spaces one half foot narrower than required by Code. The nine foot
width is necessary in parking lots with constant turnover as for retail shopping
centers. However, eight and a half foot parking space width is adequate in the
case of all day parking for an office building and all night parking for hotel
use..
Proposed arrangements for joint office and hotel use of the parking ramp
involve Trammell Crow construction of the ramp in conjunction with the office
building and leasing of 3/11 of the ramp, or 307 of the total 1124 spaces, to
the hotel for an initial period of fifteen years. Spaces along the west side
of the ramp near the entry to the hotel on several ramp levels would be
reserved for hotel use.
Conformance with Setback Requirements
The front yard setback requirement of 35 feet from the street right -of -way line
applies to all sides of the proposed development in view of the fact that the
site is surrounded by streets. In the case of buildings over three stories in
height, the Zoning Code specifies the addition of five feet of setback for each
additional story.
The proposed development provides 60 feet of setback from the Xenia Avenue
South right -of -way line to the closest point of the hotel structure. The set-
back from the I -394 exit ramp right -of -way line on the south side to the closest
point of the office building is 45 feet. The development is oriented towards
Xenia Avenue South as the front of the complex, and the greatest setback is
maintained on the Xenia Avenue side. Considerable setback is also maintained
from the I -394 frontage on the south side. The site at the intersection of
I -394 with Xenia Avenue South is suitable to high rise development, and staff
feels that the setbacks from Xenia and from the I -394 right -of -way are adequate.
Informal Public Hearing - PUD #53, The Colonnade
June 18, 1986
Page 5
Setbacks from the detached frontage road on the north to the hotel and parking
ramp and from Turners Crossroad on the east to the parking ramp are less than
the standard 35 foot setback required from street right -of -way lines to buildings
up to three stories in height. The setback distances on the north are approxi-
mately 23 feet to the hotel and approximately 20 feet to the ramp at the farthest
point down to ten feet to the ramp at the northeast corner of the site. The
distance from the Turners Crossroad right -of -way line to the parking ramp is
approximately 17 feet.
Ramp height is minimized by construction of one level below grade with one at
grade and only three rising above grade. Height of the five level ramp will be
33 to 37 feet above grade depending on type of construction, which roughly
corresponds to the three -story building height restriction standard to both
residential and nonresidential zoning districts in Golden Valley.
In view of the fact that the site is surrounded on all sides by street and the
project orientation is toward Xenia Avenue South, the north and east sides are
reasonably treated as rear yards. However, the parking ramp will be visible
from residences on the east side of Turners Crossroad to the northeast of the
development. The minimal setbacks proposed will be acceptable only with maximum
effort to enhance the appearance of the parking ramp. The proponent specifies
brick exterior finish of the parking ramp and indicates intensified landscaping
treatment of the setbacks. The brick exterior will be in a color which coordi-
nates with the granite used on the office building exterior. Landscaping in
setbacks from the service road and Turners Crossroad to the ramp includes over -
story trees, evergreen trees and ornamental trees. The proponent states that
size of overstory trees at the time of installation will be four inch diameter
which provides height of approximately 20 feet. Ramp height and landscaping
treatment are similar to that of the parking ramp at the Normandale Office
Park, a Trammell Crow project previously visited by Golden Valley Planning
Commission, City Council and staff members. The proponent intends to show
slides of the Normandale ramp at the June 23, 1986 Planning Commission meeting.
Staff feels reassured that visual appearance of the proposed parking ramp will
be acceptable.
Site Access
Primary access to the subject site will be from I -394 by means of the adjacent
Xenia /Vernon interchange. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
has recently obtained approval of Federal funding of the detached service road
which will form the northern boundary of the development site. The purpose of
the detached service road is to provide maximum stacking space from the north
to the interchange, which will be signalized on both sides of the freeway.
The site plan prepared by the proponent shows access to the site off of Xenia
Avenue South, off of the detached service road, and off of Turners Crossroad.
The access plan submitted with the PUD Preliminary Design shows two curb cuts
on the east side of Xenia Avenue South into the development site, one of which
is two way and the second of which is an exit only from the site. The sketch
also proposes a median cut to allow access from and to southbound Xenia Avenue
Informal Public Hearing - PUD #,53, The Colonnade
June 18, 1986
Page 6
South headed for the freeway interchange. Staff has referred a copy of the
proposed site plan to MnDOT for review and comment. MnDOT staff has informed
City Planning staff that a median cut on Xenia Avenue South is not acceptable
and will not be approved ed b
PP y MnDOT. According to MnDOT staff, two curb cuts
from Xenia into the site may be acceptable depending on the locations. Staff
suggests that approval of the PUD Preliminary Design be conditional upon con-
formance to MnDOT plans and approval by MnDOT in order to maximize cooperation
with efforts to facilitate traffic flow at the Xenia /Vernon interchange.
Staff discussed with the proponent planning and regulation of use of the three
access points to the parking ramp in order to maximize traffic flow and minimize
congestion. The proponent contends that traffic flow in and out of the parking
ramp will be self regulating in that office employees commuting to the site
regularly will tend to select access oints and times which minimize i
P their own
inconvenience and, therefore, also minimize congestion. The ro onent informs
P P
staff that past experience with efforts to regulate timing and routes indicates
such programs are unsuccessful.
Traffic Generation
Traffic congestion at the future Xenia /Vernon interchange with I -394 is already
a matter of major concern to the Cities of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park,
MnDOT and Metropolitan Council. The traffic situation is the subject of both
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Indirect Source Permit (ISP)
currently in process under the direction of a consultant retained by the pro -
ponent. The primary issue in the EAW is traffic congestion, which is signifi-
cant not only for review of the subject development proposal but for future
development proposals in both Golden Valley and St. Louis Park at the location
of the Xenia /Vernon freeway interchange. An ISP is required for any project
providing parking for 1000 or more cars, and the focus of the ISP is air pollu-
tion resulting from automobile trip generation. The ISP also has significance
for both this development and future development in the area. Results of the
environmental reviews are preliminary at this time.
The environmental review has an influence on the development schedule. According
to the developer, the ISP is anticipated approximately October 1, 1986, after
which demolition of existing buildings on the site may commence. The applicant
estimates that demolition will take approximately four weeks, with a construction
start scheduled for November 1, 1986. Office construction completion is scheduled
for February or March of 1988.
Recommendation
Based on suitability of the office /hotel land use to the site located adjacent
to a future major freeway interchange, Chan e staff Y g suggests that the Planning Commission
recommend
City Council y Co cal approval of the Preliminary Design Plan for PUD #53, The
Colonnade, which proposes construction of a fifteen -story office building and
ten -story hotel with combined parking ramp, subject to the following conditions:
1. A Preliminary Plat conforming to the approved PUD Preliminary Design
Plan shall be submitted with the PUD General Plan of Development.
Informal Public Hearing - PUD #53, The Colonnade
June 18, 1986
Page 7
2. Plans for site access off of Xenia Avenue South and off of the detached
frontage road shall conform to MnDOT I -394 plans for the Xenia /Vernon
interchange.
3. Environmental review, including an ISP, shall be satisfactorily
completed prior to construction.
4. The foundation for the parking ramp shall be constructed in such a
manner as to accommodate future addition of another level of parking if
required.
5. Retail and service uses included in the development shall be compatible
with the office and hotel uses and shall be scaled to accommodate the
office and hotel clientele. Uses provided for in the PUD shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: Day care, health club, restaurants,
cafeteria, postal substation, banking facilities, car wash, convenience
store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop, beauty shop and
tanning booth.
Attachments:
1. PUD Preliminary Design Plan Application Form
2. PUD Preliminary Design Plan Application Follow -Up Letter Dated
June 13, 1986
3. Site Plan (Full sized plan sheet enclosed separately)
4. Landscape Plan (Full sized plan sheet enclosed separately)
5. Sketch of Proposed Land Divisions for Plat
6. Plan Reductions including Site Plan, Elevations and Preliminary
Floor Plans
7. Short - Elliott- Hendrickson Parking Study
8. Barton- Aschman Parking Study
9. MnDOT Possible Site Access Plan
10. Exhibits to Development Agreements including Exhibit F Site Plan and
Exhibits F -2 Elevations of Office Building and Hotel
December 5, 1986
TO: William S. Joynes, City Manager
FROM: Alda Wilkinson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - General Plan of Development for PUD #53,
The Colonnade
The Golden Valley City Council on August 5, 1986 approved the Preliminary
Design Plan of PUD #53, The Colonnade, which proposes construction of a
fifteen -story office building and a hotel with combined parking ramp on the
northeast corner of the intersection of future I -394 and Xenia Avenue South,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A preliminary plat conforming to the approved PUD preliminary design
plan shall be submitted with the PUD General Plan of Development.
2. Plans for site access off of Xenia Avenue South and off of the detached
frontage road shall conform to Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) 1 -394 plans for the Xenia /Vernon interchange.
3. Environmental review, including an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) shall
be satisfactorily completed prior to construction.
4. The foundation for the parking ramp shall be constructed in such a
manner as to accommodate future addition of another level of parking if
required.
5. Retail and service uses included in the development shall be compatible
with the office and hotel uses and shall be scaled to accommodate the
office and hotel clientele. Uses provided for in the PUD shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: Day care, health club, restaurants,
cafeteria, postal substation, banking facilities, car wash, convenience
store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop, beauty shop and
tanning booth.
Trammell Crow Company, developer of the office building, has submitted an
application for PUD General Plan of Development approval. General Plan of
Development approval may proceed at this time based on HRA ownership of the
properties. Eventual signature of the PUD permit will include both the HRA as
interim owner of the hotel parcel and Trammell Crow as intended owner of the
office building, parking ramp, and common entrance parcels.
Platting Requirement
The first condition of Preliminary Design Plan approval, preparation of a
Preliminary Plat, now becomes a requirement for preparation of a Final Plat.
Trammell Crow was not in a position to prepare a Preliminary Plat as required
at the PUD Preliminary Design Plan stage due to the fact that final MnDOT right -
of -way limits delineating site boundaries were not available. Trammell Crow`
has submitted with the PUD General Plan of Development the grading, drainage
and utility plans required as part of a Preliminary Plat. These plans
William S. Joynes
December 5, 1986
Page 2
correspond to a site survey based on finalized MnDOT right -of -way requirements.
Trammell Crow has not submitted a Preliminary Plat indicating lot divisions.
The Final Plat should divide the PUD property into four lots as indicated on a
preliminary sketch submitted with the PUD Preliminary Design Plan. The proposed
property division creates separate lots for the office building, the hotel, the
parking ramp, and the common entrance.
Conformance with MnDOT Plans
The second condition of Preliminary Design Plan approval, conformance with
MnDOT plans for the I- 394 /Xenia interchange and frontage road, is met by the
PUD General Plan of Development. In accordance with direction from MnDOT,
access off of Xenia Avenue South has been reduced from two curb cuts to one
curb cut, and a median cut proposed by Trammell Crow at the site entrance on
Xenia has been eliminated. MnDOT right-of-way requirements for the frontage
9 Y e q 9
road necessitated adjustment of the parking ramp to the south, but Trammell
Crow has managed to maintain or increase setbacks from property lines. The
setback to the office building from the southerly property line adjacent to the
I -394 exit ramp remains 45 feet, which is the same as the setback approved on
the Preliminary Design Plan. The setback from the east property line along
Turners Crossroad to the parking ramp is increased from 17 feet on the Prelim -
inary Design Plan to 20 feet on the General Plan of Development. The setback
from the north property line along the frontage road to the parking ramp is
increased from 20 feet on the Preliminary Design Plan to 25 feet on the General
Plan of Development. Treatment of the corner at the intersection of the
frontage road with Turners Crossroad is changed. On the Preliminary Design
Plan, northerly setback to the ramp gradually decreased down to ten feet at the
corner. On the General Plan of Development, right -of -way at the corner cuts
diagonally to ensure sight visibility for traffic. Trammell Crow provides a
cut in the corner of the parking ramp to adjust to the new right -of -way con-
figuration. The ramp is close to the property line, but adequate distance from
the street is maintained.
Environmental Review
The fourth condition of Preliminary Design Plan approval, provision for future
addition of a sixth level to the parking ramp, should be repeated in the General
Plan of Development approval. Parking ramp sizing approved in the PUD Prelim -
inary Design Plan specified a five -level ramp providing 1124 parking spaces with
potential for addition of a sixth level providing an additional 225 -230 parking
spaces for a total of approximately 1350 parking spaces. Staff felt the option
for additional parking space was necessary for approval of the proposed 360,000
leasable square foot office building and .243 suite hotel. Capacity to add
parking space becomes more important with loss of a specific hotel developer
and need for flexibility on future development of the hotel site.
Accessory Retail and Service Uses
The fifth condition of Preliminary Design Plan approval, which provides for
accessory retail and service uses sized to accommodate the office and hotel
uses, is appropriately repeated in the General Plan of Development approval.
Mr. William S. Joynes
December 5, 1986
Page 3
Future Hotel Use
As mentioned above, absence of a specific hotel developer at this time suggests
need for flexibility on future development of the hotel site. In approving the
PUD General Plan of Development and drafting the PUD Permit, it is necessary to
consider the degree of review appropriate for hotel proposals submitted in the
future. The PUD Preliminary Design Plan approval contemplated a 15 -story
office building with 409,000 square feet of gross floor area and 360,000 square
feet of leasable office area, combined with a ten -story suite hotel including
243 suites and minimal conference and restaurant facilities. Parking provisions
are based on the suite hotel concept and on a hotel of 243 suites. In order to
assure appropriate parking provisions, staff suggests that the PUD specify the
following minimum requirements for conformance with the approved PUD:
1. A suite type of hotel with minimal conference and restaurant facilities.
2. A hotel size of up to approximately 250 suites.
Review through the PUD amendment procedure is appropriate in the case of deviation
from this basic concept. As an owner within the PUD, Trammell Crow signature
would be required on any PUD amendment application.
Interim use and maintenance of the future hotel site is appropriately addressed
in the PUD. In order to provide integrated preparation of the total PUD site,
it is appropriate to require that Trammell Crow grade the entire PUD site,
including the hotel parcel, at the time of preparation for construction. Interim
maintenance of the site would be an HRA responsibility. Provision should be made
inthe PUD for possible interim use of the hotel site as parking for Ruperts,
which has been utilizing the parking lots of existing businesses on the redevel-
opment site. Alternate interim finishing would involve at least seeding of the
site.
Landscaping
The Concept Landscape Site Plan submitted with the General Plan of Development
has been reviewed by the Building Board of Review, which determined that land -
scaping treatment is more than required to meet City Landscape Standards.
However, the Building Board of Review made the landscaping plan subject to
final approval due to minor discrepancies between placement of the office
building on the final site plan and placement on the landscape concept plan.
The landscape plan includes landscaping of the median in Xenia Avenue South.
Trammell Crow has stated desire to install landscaping in the median and
willingness to maintain median landscaping. Connection of the median to any
sprinkling system for maintenance of landscaping is recommended. Trammell Crow
understands that installation of landscaping in the median must be coordinated
with MnDOT planning and construction of the median.
Mr. William S. Joynes
December 5, 1986
Page 4
Sidewalks
The Trammell Crow Overall Site Plan submitted with the General Plan of Development
provides sidewalks and walkways for pedestrian circulation on the office, ramp,
and entrance sites. Sidewalk along the frontage road, along Turners Crossroad,
and along Xenia Avenue South is located on the property line partially on
street right -of -way and partially on private property. Installation of sidewalk
is at the expense of Trammell Crow as developer of the office building and
parking ramp. Maintenance, including snow removal, is assumed by the City of
Golden Valley. The City requires sidewalk easements for portions of sidewalks
located on private property.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council pass on first reading the attached
Ordinance approving the General Plan of Development for PUD #53, The Colonnade,
which proposed construction of an office building and hotel with combined
parking ramp on the northeast corner of the intersection of future I -394 and
Xenia Avenue South, and that the Council direct staff to prepare a PUD Permit
incorporating the following conditions:
1. Permitted uses in PUD 4 53, The Colonnade, shall be as follows:
a) An office building 15 stories in height comprising 409,000 square
feet of gross office space and 360,000 square feet of leasable
office space.
b) A suite hotel with minimal conference and restaurant facilities
comprising up to approximately 250 suites.
c) A five -level parking ramp 52 feet in height providing 1124 parking
spaces with potential for addition of a sixth level providing an
additional 225 to 230 parking spaces for a total of approximately
1350 parking space.
d) Retail and service uses compatible with the office and hotel uses.
Retail and service uses shall be scaled to accommodate the office
and hotel clientele. Uses may include, but shall not be limited
to, the following: Day care, health club, restaurants, cafeteria,
postal substation, banking facilities, car wash, convenience
store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop, beauty
shop and tanning booth.
e) Potential interim use of the hotel site for surface parking.
2. The office building developer shall prepare a Final Plat of the PUD #53
property which divides the site into four lots as indicated on the sketch
plan submitted and approved with the PUD Preliminary Design Plan. The
four proposed lots delineate the office building site, the hotel site,
the parking ramp site, and the common entrance site.
3. The plat name shall include "PUD #53 ".
Mr. William S. Joynes
December 5, 1986
Page 5
4. Standard drainage and utility easements along property lines, as
required in the City Subdivision Regulations, shall be provided on
the Final Plat.
5. Sidewalk easements shall be provided by separate instrument for side
walks partially on street right -of -way and partially on private
property along Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and the frontage
road.
6. The office building developer shall be responsible for site prepara-
tion, including demolition and grading, of the entire PUD site,
including the hotel site, prior to construction.
7. The office building developer shall be responsible for installation
of sidewalks on the office, parking ramp, and common entrance sites
as shown on the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by
Wilson /Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986.
8. The foundation for the parking ramp shall be constructed in such a
manner as to accommodate future addition of another level of parking
if required.
9. The Landscape Plan shall meet the final approval of the City Building
Inspector.
10. The office building developer shall be responsible for installation
and maintenance of landscaping in the median on Xenia Avenue South
and shall provide a sprinkler service connection for maintenance of
the landscaping.
11. Environmental review, including an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) shall
be satisfactorily completed prior to construction.
Attachments:
I. Ordinance
2. Preliminary building plans and elevations (17 pages)
3. Listing of exterior materials
4. Site, Grading and Utility Plans (Four full -sized plan sheets enclosed
separately)
5. Concept Landscape Site Plan (Full -sized plan sheet enclosed separately)
P.U.D. #53
City Council Approval: December 16, 1986
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA
USE PERMIT
FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NAME: The Colonnade
ADDRESS: 5500 - 5600 Wayzata Boulevard and 700 Turners Crossroad
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 1, The Colonnade P.U.D. No. 53
APPLICANT: Trammell Crow Company
ADDRESS: 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., #375
Bloomington, MN 55437
OWNERS: The Colonade Limited Partnership
8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., #375
Bloomington, MN 55437
and
Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial and Light Industrial
PERMITTED USES: Uses permitted in this Planned Unit Development are an
office building, hotel and shared parking ramp.
COMPONENTS:
A. Land Use Component
1. Land uses within P.U.D. 53 shall be as follows:
a) An office building 15 stories in height comprising 409,000
square feet of gross office space and 360,000 square feet
of leasable office space.
b) A suite hotel with minimal conference and restaurant
facilities comprising up to approximately 250 suites.
r
- 2 -
c) A five -level parking ramp 52 feet in height providing 1124
parking spaces with potential for addition of a sixth level
providing an additional 225 to 230 parking spaces for a
total of approximately 1350 parking spaces.
d) Retail and service uses compatible with the office and
hotel uses. Retail and service uses shall be scaled to
accommodate the office and hotel clientele. Uses may
include, but shall not be limited to, the following: Day
care, health club, restaurants, cafeteria, postal
substation, banking facilities, car wash, convenience
store, travel agency, secretarial service, barber shop,
beauty shop and tanning booth.
e) Potential interim use of the hotel site for surface parking.
2. The Concept Landscape Site Plan, prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/
Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, shall be revised to conform to
the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/ Jenkins and
Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986, and shall be subject to the
approval of the City Building Inspector. Landscaping, as shown on the
approved Concept Landscape Site Plan, shall be completed within 210
days following completion and occupancy of buildings.
3. Landscaping of the median in Xenia Avenue South in accordance with the
Concept Landscape Site Plan prepared by Arteka Landscape Architects/
Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, shall be optional subject to the
final decision of the office building developer. If the office building
developer elects to landscape the median, it shall be the responsibility
of the developer to obtain approval from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) for the landscaping, to coordinate the landscap-
ing with MnDOT median construction, to install landscaping materials,
and to maintain the median landscaping. If the median is landscaped,
the office building developer shall provide nn
9 P p e a sprinkler service co ec -
tion for maintenance of the landscaping.
4. The foundation for the parking ramp shall be constructed in such a manner
as to accommodate future addition of another level of parking if required.
5. The office building developer shall be responsible for site preparation,
including demolition and grading, of the entire PUD site, including the
hotel site, prior to construction.
6. Special precautions shall be taken during and after construction to
protect against erosion, silting, excessive grading, or any other
conditions detrimental to the area. Grading and excavation for footings
and other construction needs shall be done in an manner so as to avoid
dirt storage, disturbing of trees, or other activities beyond the
prescribed construction limits.
-3-
B. Circulation Component
1. The office building developer shall be responsible for installation of
sidewalks on the office, parking ramp, and common entrance sites and
adjacent street right -of -way as shown on the Overall Site Plan, Sheet
No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated
October 14, 1986. The hotel developer shall be responsible for instal -
lation of sidewalks on the hotel site and adjacent street right -of -way
as required.
2. The City of Golden Valley shall maintain sidewalks wholly or partially
on street right -of -way along Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and
the frontage road. The office building owner shall maintain all
sidewalk located entirely on private property on the office, parking
ramp, and common entrance sites. The hotel owner shall maintain all
sidewalk located entirely on private property on the hotel site.
3. All green areas adjacent to parking and access areas shall be pro-
tected by concrete curb.
4. The developers shall participate in transit planning for the I -394
corridor.
C. Subdivision Component
1. Sidewalk easements shall be provided by separate instrument for sidewalks
partially on street right -of -way and partially on private property along
Xenia Avenue South, Turners Crossroad, and the frontage road.
D. Services and Facilities Component
1. All utilities shall be underground.
2. All mechanicals on roof or ground shall be screened with Inspection
Department approval.
3. The structure and grading shall meet all the requirements of the Golden
Valley Fire Marshal, Engineering Department and Sanitarian.
4. All waste generated by the occupancy shall be stored internally until
removed from the premises.
E. Construction Order Component
1. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an
amount to be determined by the City Engineering Department shall be
provided for all bituminous surfacing and concrete walk as indicated on
the Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and
Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986. The bond shall be executed
and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department P rior to
issuance f building r
o pe mits.
-4-
2. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an
amount of $105,000 shall be provided for landscaping in conjunction
with first phase development of the office building, parking ramp and
common entrance sites and shall run for two (2) full growing seasons
after installation of landscaping materials and until released by the
Golden Valley Inspection Department. The bond shall be executed and
delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection Department prior to issuance
of building permits.
3. A bond running in favor of the City of Golden Valley as obligee in an
amount of approximately $75,000, subject to review and confirmation or
adjustment by the City Building Inspector, shall be provided for
landscaping of second phase development of the hotel site and shall run
for two (2) full growing seasons after installation of landscaping
materials and until released by the Golden Valley Inspection Department.
The bond shall be executed and delivered to the Golden Valley Inspection
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
F. Maps and Reports
1. The project shall be constructed in conformity with the following
approved plans:
a) Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson/
Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986.
b) Site Plan, Sheet 1, prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and
Associates, Inc., dated April 28, 1986, for indication of
approximate future hotel footprint and location on site,
updated for remainder of PUD site by the above Overall Site
Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1, prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and
Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986.
c) Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, Sheet No. CE
2.1, prepared by Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc.,
dated October 14, 1986.
d) Utility Plan, Sheet No. CE 2.2, prepared by Han s en Thorp,
Pellinen, Olson, Inc., dated October 14, 1986.
e) Elevations prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and Associates, Inc.,
including Sheet 10 West Elevation, Sheet 11 West Elevation -
Front Entry and East Elevation -Rear Entry and Loading Dock,
and Sheet 12 South Elevation /Section- Atrium and North
Elevation /Section- Atrium, dated April 28, 1986.
f) Addendum #3, prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and Associates,
Inc., dated November 18, 1986.
g) Concept Landscape Site Plan, prepared by Arteka Landscape
Architects /Contractors, dated February 20, 1986, to be
revised, subject to approval of the City Building Inspector,
- 5 -
to conform to the above Overall Site Plan, Sheet No. C 1.1,
prepared by Wilson /Jenkins and Associates, Inc., dated
October 14, 1986.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City
Council approval granted on December 16, 1986 relative to Planned Unit
Development #53.
THE COLONADE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BY: Crow - Colonade, Inc.
Its Managing General Partner
WITNESS: �?z < �-C BY:
-T
DATE: - 11 2 - 7
GOLDEN VALLEY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
WITNESS: BY:
Ray BIL St ckma is Chair
WITNESS: Lfi) AND:
Wil iam S. J n s, Is Director
DATE: May 4, 19 7
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
WITNESS: BY:
Mary ' An rson, s Mayor
WITNESS: AND:
illiam S. Jo ne is City Manager
DATE: May 4, 198
WARNING: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/i(8/90
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
REPORT ON 1989 ACTIVITIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
* * * * * * * * * * * * **IAPP�* D *R * ** �R *o ** PUBLIC * WORKS
********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes
Explanation
• The City's Administrative Traffic Committee meets monthly to discuss requests
and complaints from the public and from City staff regarding traffic safety.
This Committee is composed of the City Manager, Director of Public Works, and
Chief of Police. The Committee's 1989 activity is summmarized in the attached
report.
The Traffic Committee was established in 1981. There are three primary
advantages to the makeup of the Committee and the process it follows: first,
it reduces the burden of work on Council members, second, it results in faster
decisions by eliminating steps, and third, it promotes coordination and
communication among City staff.
As the annual report indicates, the bulk of the requests or complaints made are
requests for Stop signs or requests for road or right of way improvements.
Most of these requests or complaints, if they were to be considered by the
Council, would simply be referred to staff for resolution or recommendation.
The Traffic Committee eliminates this referral step by immediately acting upon
the requests or complaints, making recommendations to the Council where
necessary. This process reduces the number of cases which the Council need
consider, and increases responsiveness.
Lastly, the monthly meetings of the Committee promote cooperation and
communication between the affected departments, and facilitate the sharing of
information. Decisions are made on the basis of input from all parties. The
meetings also serve as a forum for the discussion of related items and for the
• sharing of ideas.
Recommendation
A report is provided for review and comment.
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF
B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
C ENTER
911
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police
FROM: Diane Spector, Public Works Coordinator
Administrative Traffic Committee Coordinator
DATE: January 3, 1990
SUBJ: Report of 1989 Committee Activity
The Administrative Traffic Committee met monthly in 1989 to consider
traffic - related requests and complaints and other related business. The 55
requests and complaints considered were received from Brooklyn Center residents,
persons who work in the City, the Brooklyn Center Police Department, and other
City staff.
Major items approved by the Committee this past year included:
• Installation of four -way Stop signs at 69th and France Avenues;
• Installation of four -way Stop signs at John Martin and Earle Brown Drives;
• Recommendation to the Council that it request Hennepin County to undertake
safety and capacity improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard (approved by the
Council 2/13/89
• Recommendation to the Council that the City construct sidewalks on segments
of 73rd, Humboldt, and Xerxes Avenues, and a traffic island on 53rd Avenue
at East Twin Lake Boulevard;
• Installation of signage around Upper Twin Lake to help control snowmobile
and other winter traffic; and
• Recommendation that the Council consider a construction project on Brooklyn
Boulevard at the south ramp to TH 100, adding a traffic signal and
reconstructing the access to Malmberg's and Brookdale Covenant Church.
�� z
Page Two
January 3, 1990
Summary of Requests /Complaints and Their Resolution
Table 1 summarizes the types of requests or complaints considered by the City,
and their resolution. The attached map shows the locations of the requests or
complaints. The Committee considered 55 "cases" in 1989, compared to 47 in
1988 and 56 in 1987. However, each "case" may have included more than one
request or complaint, so that the total shown on Table 1 is greater than the
number of "cases."
Please note the large number of Stop signs requested which, after investigation,
the Committee denied. In virtually all of these cases, the Committee determined
that there was little or no history of accidents at the particular intersection,
that traffic volume did not warrant a sign, or both. The two locations where
Stop signs were installed were Hillsview Road and Lilac Drive and 53rd Avenue
and East Twin Lake Boulevard.
A second item of note is the thirteen requests for
road or right of way
improvements. These include requests for trimming of trees or brush
obstructing drivers' line of sight or view of Stop signs; requests for
crosswalks, lane designations, or other pavement markings; and requests for
maintenance of boulevards, rights of way, or turnarounds. Other signs installed
this past year include no parking signs, signs that better explain the location
of dead ends, and a bicycle /pedestrian trail Stop sign where a Central /Garden
City Parks trail exits the park area onto Brooklyn Drive.
The Other Requests /Complaints included complaints about speeding or heavy
traffic. The two requests for signals included a request for a signal at
Brooklyn Boulevard and the south ramp to TH 100, which the Committee agreed to
recommend be pursued, and a request for a left turn arrow on 65th Avenue at
Humboldt, for motorists turning onto TH 100. The Committee declined to take
action at that time, but improvements will be made in the 65th /Freeway Boulevard
1990 construction project.
Other Discussion Items
The Committee discussed a number of related items over the year. The locations
of painted crosswalks in the City were reviewed, as were the locations where
biennial traffic counts are taken. A draft ordinance regulating boulevard
area permitted uses has been discussed for possible Council hearing. A number
of other policy items were discussed for possible recommendation to the
Council. Finally, the monthly meetings have served as a forum for sharing
related information.
Respectfully submitted,
V C �
Diane Spector
Administrative Traffic Coordinator
Attachment
TABLE 1
1989 ADMINISTRATIVE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DECISIONS
Denied But
Alternate
Approved Action Taken Denied
Request for Signals 1 1
Request for Stop Sign 2 2 11
Request for 4 -Way Stop 3 ** 1 1
Request for Other Sign 7 S 3
Request to Remove /Change Sign 3
Request for Road or ROW Improvements 13 1 4
Other Requests /Complaints 4 1
TOTAL 33 11 19
*Includes those which were initially denied but which will be reevaluated later
(such as complaints possibly related to Xerxes bridge temporary closing, or
I- 94/694 construction).
* *The 4 -way stop at 69th and France Avenues was requested by two different
persons.
NOTE: The total will be greater than the number of "cases," because a case may have
more than one request /complaint.
�► I1• uur- ••vwuuuoml �- i_ W ► 11_ r =i = ' Imuu -
;` - �i.,.:-� � I70r �.. �O •t1 �= =- = ••p,�D - : - _ :. ■1 = = :.fit•• 1""911NMO1: �■� =� � � �
� C C? :: � %�� r ��� _- - �+a■� ♦gi,Ilpq l i :G O� � ^ .x.un.■ ire cr �\ C_ _��., � o ����
`�,. iu.•�i 1t: i c u7 il� •i - �C_ Y_ � t ► ♦b � • •' � -_ uo■■uo \_9 Cil n■ i�Y .N � s� o � \I�•��
�''!�rr.'�I .. \ .i1. rMff�� �uawr■or.� - - - �� ► :i i�� 1 •� • .� �� � � ■v .ter■ nn �- M ud� • � r��-�-,��
piv �L �� � • 1
'' " "�� � � = �� �� �� _. �_ �t � � �� ' -L =U �tJ C�_ ELI riti•i'i -,,. f ,
*.w*.w4r •��ill C N11 Ni► ��� = _\ MYSrlII: , w 1" .. .
IC IM N:�►LUN1i� \_ _\ 1111111111 �� '�
L JT x : 111 f ul1 nl.. 7 IM!!"lnuuu' C - COIIIIIIII II IIII ■T�■ ■
... ■..■ ag o 1 nm
1•�Y.]fi .- - ..L/•I 1I1 " �1 \ . \ 111 /1 N N M■ ■
•U1; s�+ ? _ _ �� p - c u a -rr '.•., _� I �. 1 -- ■
I suffix,
1 .: : 1
� ��• 11 III d " � ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ��\ ■ 1��
I - � 11 111111 1 IVr r ^.(� � � �, ��� ►••••••�••••Q•• �� �■ : � � �
�� I/I �� Di�i ♦iii ♦i ♦i ♦i• ■ s
p u■x■nuuu °uu • list lots Ir. �• - _- •n � ► ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦�
p ou +'-■'■ wOttr / ► _ - -sr � ► ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � �� :�
- ■N■uNnuu■► i� UUIU •IIIOIIN ■I /��� • -- -• ~ •tN• ti• ' ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ •
0 Nn• °rr■■N ■ ■■ d ,� UINII t"^"" 1MIUU � � •IIL � �••• q � T ■, �
■1 ■ ■ ■ ■U ■NU ■Ntltt� r UIUtP p1111 /NI01 \�' ► O •ON ► II • ••• .. T ♦ ♦• ♦••• �7
- non■racrr•nnun �i1 onn1: r'- •Ilwrin.011 / /��� -,aQq �� �� uonn•I!i, ♦ •i., ,�. - . . • �
11� puu uuuP u• �: ■� __ ° ■ �� ♦i 4y �� 111114q ♦ 4�/4 Mnd N -I
C� �L: � � �� = - 4 -_ -= __ �� �' •� � fr'���C OLIN /,, � j ♦IN INNr f W� ` �; �� � � /� C� - -_ � r �.
,.y . _.J -- J ■ r .. �L - \ rHO: II �O IN ■NIN ■NI .. .. -
� .� i ��' �� ■/ O• - -•� to fINIO� ` NU ►� ♦ 1 , �� /1 MNNNNUI��,'� .. ��. �i �.� � - � _ - s - �_ -• , �
= • ��m� -��: of i�• � .... i���i�rN �\ C A � . ` t �• .� Nz••� ulvNl„ Nunnugr. �• � . I ( �� '.�
INU ■/1 �NI��� C �� ,ir ill• ■N ■NUIO ■ ■ ■•r .u...■...►..c • t - -
:uuullt■ wn NHJ■n . C� uNnNlNlr -. IryNnl•�► /
11NIN : :C C: ■o - �� G - umu111N111 ■ •� NNIIIIQIpoI NlNtonl �. 1 Q UI =
•1 _ INN. uu►•. w - In.�rr, I. . _. __ , I
�..irrnr i� � LS1 - Vii• t:� � :� � IN�1} ��� :- •N�� r• � � ' + � � == ���\
p ;nln•11: ; _! �� �' • = IO11►h _. , .: •11 /.•p • ,a :::: I N�il:i • � `- --
- .nr•w+t � I ? ♦ ♦� S �'+Qt ! nIn nnlr � =� == tu•►t• ►aq C ....: �' == -- r :11�
�111111� � . • �►• ��ID- NU �NI I /UNt Ott• -� kl IN NINA O �' � - • _ - -
i� \_ ♦ ♦y�1 . 1► ►1111.11/11 -- ■Qt.. ♦� 4N luu► • � - -
� •1 - � ► y,.,, � t1.1 7r VIII . �♦ � . �- - � -- - �
III _ ►•• ,- -\ -\ ~yN111111t1 rr _
II ► ♦ ♦�, . �. OI ■�,� �� ►�h / /•��� -, / _ __ _ ..
V V .■ . Z711Y. UGt• RRR��� �- ■NI�',fYMM /NN - �
FEE Niles ld71 !�� :a ao_ :o a: �_ / off - _
utn
�� lo
22 ZZ
-•111 - - - - _ '� -- __ ■■ ..■
h1u► mil _ ..l ..
al am
� � .P t /NUI �� ♦♦ � -� i� � • _ a-= `•c a��� � T C ■il / M �I'� T 'll �.Y#� � h•!�
u --rw•■ i ?�du rung p 1� _ - ■■ I I � 9 ■ i _I = i� 0 \= Ci 5� _ ■ hiC 7■ m
• �� . ♦ i• r NI IININI•Ulli ZZ a i■ iN as :1 ■ Ci VAMEJEE
—� • , � rl ' j■ ./I M /Ir^fP'1WN1 Mq . SO •: •_ _ _
B .
V4
am a nn ' ,.r -w11•�II!Y11� .1 �n�•N�1NiJl v • . s- e. C � _ � _ _ =r �' I>•�_7 �t>•
•�N' cz -
: •,1 1111__
S so-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 1/8/90
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINE SALES
*********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
DEPT. APPROVAL:
,1 Personnel Coordinator
Signature title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report _ Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
The city council has received a great deal of background information on restricting or prohibiting
cigarette vending machine sales in Brooklyn Center. A copy of a memo previously submitted to you
• is attached, but the supplementary materials that accompanied it are not. Also attached for the
council's discussion are two draft ordinances; one totally prohibits vending sales of cigarettes and the
other restricts the sales.
Should the council proceed on selecting an ordinance, it may want to discuss what effective date the
ordinance should have. Licenses for cigarette vending machines are issued by the City on an annual
basis, so all current licenses will not expire until December 31, 1990.
REQUESTED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Discuss proposed ordinances regarding cigarette vending
machine sales.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator AO
DATE: December 21, 1989
SUBJECT: Cigarette Vending Machine Sales
Last week I attended a workshop entitled "Children's Access to
Tobacco" and was able to collect some information that may be
useful to the city council when it discusses the issue of
cigarette vending machine sales. Below is a summary of some of
the information presented at the workshop, and several of the
handouts are attached for your review.
Summary of Worksho
The clear message that came across during the workshop from a
variety of people was that if you want to control cigarette
vending machine sales, the best way to do so is to have a total
ban on cigarette vending machines. The rationale behind this is
if certain restrictions are placed on the use of vending
machines, they will be difficult to enforce. This message was
relayed by St. Louis Park Mayor Lyle Hanks; Chanhassen City
Councilwoman Ursula Dimler; Suesan Pace - Shapiro, an attorney with
Popham, Haik, Schnobrich, & Kaufman; Joel Jamnick, legal counsel
for the League of Minnesota Cities; and a number of other
presenters who participated in the workshop.
Another message that came across dealt with pre- emption by other
levels of government. Apparently there are those who urge local
officials not to take action on this issue because they suggest
the state legislature will be debating it in the 1990 legislative
session. There was a great deal of evidence indicating that
controlling efforts are diluted when dealt with at the state
level because of the realty of compromise. It is virtually
impossible to pass legislation regarding tobacco control at the
federal level because of the powerful tobacco lobby. The
conclusion reached by many of the workshop presenters was that
the local level seems to provide the best vehicle for control
because local officials generally are not as controllable by
powerful lobbyists and as a result will not compromise away
effective control measures.
Recently the City of Chanhassen passed an ordinance totally
banning cigarette vending machine sales. Councilwoman Ursula
Dimler said initially the city council intended only to restrict
sales. However, once the council heard testimony from police
department personnel, local high school student council officers,
the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and
Dr. Jean Forster of the University of Minnesota, the council felt
strongly enough to pass a total ban on the vending sales. Some
of Councilwoman Dimler's comments are attached to this
Memorandum to Gerald G. Splinter
Page 2
December 21, 1989
memorandum, and they are rather enlightening about the process
the Chanhassen city council experienced.
Once you have presented this information to the city council,
please let me know how you want me to pursue this issue. I'll
end on a startling fact: Next ear, 1 000 people will die from
Y P P
AIDS. Tomorrow, tobacco-
related
people will die from tobacco
diseas
es.
P P related
Attachments
A. Adoption of Local Regulations Regarding Tobacco (reviews
City's authority, pre- emption, constitutionality, suggestions
for adopting an ordinance, and case law)
B. Comments by Chanhassen City Councilwoman Ursula Dimler
C. Notes for talk on Nicotine: An Addictive Drug by Harry A.
Lando, Associate Professor, Division of Epidemiology,
University of Minnesota School of Public Health
D. Children's Access to Tobacco -- Research Results -- Jean L.
Forster, Ph.D., M.P.H., University of Minnesota
E. The Issue: Youth Access to Tobacco
F. Executive Summary of Findings for the Study of Teenage
Cigarette Smoking oking and Purchasing Behavior prepared by
Response Research, Inc.
G. Tobacco Tactics -- a summary of tactics used by the tobacco
industry
H. Ordinance -- City of White Bear Lake -- bans cigarette
vending sales
I. Ordinance -- City of Shoreview -- restricts cigarette vending
sales
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of
, 1990, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 regarding general
licensing regulations.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please
contact the ersonn -
el coordinator at 561 544
P 0 to
make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 23 -105 RESTRICTIONS. No license shall be issued except to a
person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for
sale of cigarettes at any place other than his established place of business.
No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable place of
business; nor shall any one license be issued for the sale of cigarettes at more
than one place of business or applicant. No person shall sell or dispense any
cigarettes or tobacco product cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper through the
use of a vending machine No person shall sell or give any cigarette, cigarette
paper or cigarette wrapper to any person below the age of 18 years. No person
shall keep for sale, sell or dispose of any cigarette containing opium,
morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other
deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of
, 1990, at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle
Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 23 regarding general
licensing regulations.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please contact the personnel coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
GENERAL LICENSING REGULATIONS
The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 23 -105 RESTRICTIONS. No license shall be issued except to a
person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for
sale of cigarettes at any place other than his established place of business.
No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable place of
business; nor shall any one license be issued for the sale of cigarettes at more
than one place of business or applicant. When a vending machine is used to
sell or otherwise distribute cigarettes the vending machine shall not be
located in an area that permits unrestricted access to the vending machine by a
person who is under the age of 18 years and the licensee must maintain
continuous observation and supervision of the use of the - vending machine. No
person shall sell or give any cigarette, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper to
any person below the age of 18 years. No person shall keep for sale, sell or
dispose of any cigarette containing opium, morphine, jimsonweed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except
nicotine.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1990.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on January 8, 1990:
BOWLING ALLEY
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. 1.
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Drive _ �, %,�,�ZLt?�
City Clerk
CIGARETTE
OVER THE COUNTER SALES:
Brooklyn Center Service, Inc. 6849 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Duke's Amoco 6501 Humboldt Ave. N.
Gift Shop, Too (Days Inn) 1501 Freeway Blvd.
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive
Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N.
Total Petroleum, Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd.
MACHINE SALES:
A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S.
Best Products Co. 5924 Earle Brown Drive
Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N.
Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake Street
Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Ck. Pkwy.
North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd.
TCR Corporation 1600 67th Ave. N.
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Drive
Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. i
Bakers Square 5601 Xerxes Ave. N.
City Clerk 1.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Subway 1960 57th Ave. N. 4, lYl y7c
Sanitarian
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
Brooklyn Center Service, Inc. 6849 Brooklyn Blvd.
Humboldt Unocal 76 6840 Humboldt Ave. N.
Neil's Total 1505 69th Ave. N.
Total Petroleum, Inc. 6830 Brooklyn Blvd.
U. S. West 6540 Shingle Ck. Pkwy. J � �jak /31
City Clerk
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. i
Orchard Lane Elementary 6201 Noble Ave. N.
Sanitarian
LODGING ESTABLISHMENT
Brookdale Motel 6500 West River Road n
Budgetel Inn 6415 James Circle
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Faircon Service 2668 Patton Road
Home Energy Center 14505 21st Ave. N. �Z-
Building Official
POOL AND BILLIARDS TABLES
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Drive
City Clerk 1�
GENERAL APPROVAL: 1 , ,
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk
APPLICATION
FOR APPOINTM TO TH BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION
1 Name
2. Address L f u` -' i" ?f'�! !- ������ Phone �1�
3. How long have you been a resident?
4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to
tt is appointment:
i0e rEz 'r f.'>J /Fi 'i� n F�r�'r ✓���G
f If V L� ] .// ✓/A ! X
- continue on back -
5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the
Commission: n J
'(r�
LL t .� i.. T � 1' �`Fl1 p< 1 L /4'V f "! � �,�;4 �! �;�EG:1 lei ��1.' �f' i fY s .' / � s 1 ��i'�ii `�� �.�Z,4 "' 7 ✓�J'<� '7 y%J
�4 u✓r�tt eer
- continue on back -
6. Are you familiar with the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the
Commission as described in the Zoning Ordinance?
Yes No
7. Are ;lou aware of the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance
(normally twice a month on the 2nd and 4th Thursday nights) , and do you
feel you have the time available to be an active participant?
Yes �� , No
Comments:
p�� f r�E- f' ✓ A�
Signature Date
Submit to: Mayor
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
—K
/f l�l ,iL r � Y?S ma 14 26 )2 1, zoF Z
X"/
0, (-A2 2 X —f 6 J Z,, Z LL.
� 5� �' i��`c� �!.� f 1: rf111 x �Y�f^ i � l% fifl � :2 `G.�LI 'S' m lZI /;—r I
�' ��! .�, 7`fD ,2��'.�� �!�i �-r✓ �; ���!�/✓ aJ �.r �G .��1:�1 E.i j I71� � �'�:/ �?C', �U � /7 � � G � � ? � j
5��� � ��T ��atir� s1(aru5 ��� �.3 �f�, G�r�'rc�l.� �-r��. � Q�T 1��,,��'.�f�P��_ �����
A
F—Y m cy/
'r -4 Fff Z5
112t) L' 1 L