Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 03-25 CCP Regular Session lq CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 25, 1991 7 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Opening Ceremonies 4. Open Forum 5. Council Reports 6. Approval of Agenda and 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 form the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 7. Approval of Minutes: *a. March 11, 1991 - Regular Session 8. Ordinances: (7:15 p.m.) a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Personnel -The amendments will allow the City Manager to approve certain vacation leave and sick leave benefits without City Council approval. This item is offered this evening for a first reading. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Designation of Certain Land (Twin View Development) -This ordinance amendment involves the land considered under the Twin View Development PUD (Planning Commission Application No. 90028) and is offered for a first reading. The ordinance describes the land under its new zoning designation based on a new legal description. c. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Lot 1, Block 1, Lunacek Addition) -This ordinance was offered for a first reading on February 25, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on March 6, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 25, 1991 d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 by Repealing Ordinance No. 82 -1 (Flood Plain Management) and Adopting a New Flood Plain Management Ordinance Consistent with State and Federal Regulations -This ordinance was offered for a first reading on February 25, 1991, published in the City's official newspaper on March 6, 1991, and is offered this evening for a second reading. 9. Public Hearing: (7:30 p.m.) a. A public hearing has been scheduled to consider an amendment to the Year XVI statement of projected use of funds for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. The proposed amendment would reprogram $57,000 from the rehabilitation of private property to scattered site redevelopment. b. Resolution Amending the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Projected Use of Funds for Year XVI by Reallocating $57,000 from the Rehabilitation of Private Property, (Project 001) to a New Activity Scattered Site Redevelopment (Project 914) 10. Discussion Items: a. Review of Petitions Received for the Improvement of Humboldt Avenue North between 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North 1. Resolution Declaring Inadequacy of Petitions and Terminating Consideration of Street Improvement Project No. 1991 -01, Humboldt Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North 2. Resolution Proposing Street Improvement Project No. 1991 -01, Humboldt Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North, and Calling for Hearing Thereon b. Budget Task Force 11. Resolutions: a. Supporting the Community Cleanup of Shingle Creek and Palmer Lake and Declaring May 4, 1991, as Shingle Creek and Palmer Lake Cleanup Day *b. Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget and Approving the Purchase of a Microcomputer and Printer *c. Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget to Provide for Wage and Salary Adjustments CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 25, 1991 *d. Awarding the Sale of $700,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1991, Fixing Form and Terms Thereof and Providing for Their Payment e. Providing for the Issuance and Public Sale of General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1991B of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota *f. Declaring Surplus Property *g. Accepting Quotes and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) Mower for Centerbrook Golf Course *h. Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget to Reappropriate Drug Forfeiture Monies from Fund Balance and Approving Purchase of Equipment and Authorizing Transfer of Funds from Drug Forfeiture Monies *i. Accepting Work Performed on Improvement Project No. 1990- 17, City Garage Remodeling, Phase I *j. Accepting Work Performed and Approving Payment to City of Robbinsdale for Work on Improvement Project No. 1989 -31, Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet *k'. Accepting Work Performed on Improvement Project No. 1988- 27, Council Chambers Sound System *1. Accepting Work Performed on Improvement Project No. 1989 - 29, Cleanout of Unity Avenue Culvert *m. Accepting Proposal for Geotechnical Services Relating to Improvement Project No. 1990 -03, 1990 Water Distribution System Improvement *n. Approving Purchase Agreements for 69th Avenue Right -of- Way, Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 o. Authorizing Condemnation Proceedings, 69th Avenue Widening and Reconstruction, City Improvement Project No. 1990 -10 p. Accepting Bids and Authorizing Purchase of One (1) Fire Pumper /Water Tower - Approved in 1991 Fire Department Budget *q. Accepting Bids and Authorizing Purchase of Ten (10) Mobile Radios and Sixteen (16) Pagers from Motorola - Approved in 1991 Fire Department Budget CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- March 25, 1991 *r. Accepting Bids and Authorizing the Purchase of 800 feet of Five Inch Fire Hose - Approved in 1991 Fire Department Budget *s. Accepting Quotes and Authorizing the Purchase of 800 Feet of 1 3/4" Fire Hose Angus High Combat Hose - Approved in 1991 Fire Department Budget *t. Accepting Quotes and Authorizing the Purchase of Three (3) Diver Dry Suits U. Relating to Commercial Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Three Limited Partnership Project); Authorizing the Issuance and Sale Thereof and Authorizing the Execution of Various Necessary Documents *v. Approving the Sale of Tax Forfeited Parcels to Adjacent Owners -This relates to six vacant parcels and one outlot in Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition. *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment r MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 11, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Pro tem Celia Scott at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Pro tem Celia Scott, Councilmembers Jerry Pedlar, Dave Rosene, and Philip Cohen. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Council Secretary Ann Odden. Assistant EDA Coordinator Tom Bublitz arrived at 7:25 p.m. Mayor Todd Paulson was absent. FLAG CEREMONYANVOCATION Members of Girl Scout Troop #392 were in attendance at the Council meeting and led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance after presenting a traditional flag ceremony. Blaine Fluth offered the invocation. OPEN FORUM Mayor Pro tem Scott noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open forum session this evening. She inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, she continued with the regular agenda items. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Rosene commented while he had been at the State Capitol lobbying, he took the opportunity to speak to State Representatives Ken Nelson and Bill Schreiber in regard to the proposed flat property tax rate. He noted he had stated the City's position on the issue, which was opposition to the proposed tax. The City Manager introduced new police officers Frank Roth, Dave Tombers, and Joel Brown to the Council. 3/11/91 - 1 - t The City Manager announced awards were to be presented to Barbara Sexton, David Ault, and Benjamin Chatelle for their years of service to the Charter Commission. Mayor Pro tern Scott and Ed Commers, Chairman of the Charter Commission presented the awards. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Pro tern Scott inquired if there were any requests to remove any item from the consent agenda. Councilmember Rosene requested items 12b, 12c, and 12d be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FEBRUARY 25 1991 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the February 25, 1991, regular session. The motion passed unanimously. MARCH 4 1991 - SPECIAL SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the minutes of the March 4, 1991, special session. The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATIONS GIRL SCOUT WEEK MARCH 10 -16 1991 There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve a Proclamation Declaring the Week of March 10 -16, 1991, as Girl Scout Week. The motion passed unanimously. NATIONAL MIDDLE LEVEL EDUCATION WEEK MARCH 17-23,1991 There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve a Proclamation Declaring the Week of March 17 -23, 1991, as National Middle Level Education Week. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 91 -68 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 1991 PAY PLAN TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS MADE TO THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 3/11/91 -2- Y The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -69 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S YEAR XVI URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -70 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -71 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) 3/4 TON PICKUP TRUCKS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -72 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 33,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS WITH BOX AND HYDRAULICS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -73 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 3/11/91 -3 - m RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) HEAVY DUTY TRACTOR The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -74 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 4 -WHEEL DRIVE PICKUP TRUCK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -75 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) MOBILE CONCESSION TRAILER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Pedlar to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT )EVICE - OPERATOR American Amusement Arcades 850 Decatur Ave. N. Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Arby's 1971 1341 Brookdale Center Baskin Robbins - 31 Flavors 1277 Brookdale Center Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Assembly of God Daycare 6030 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr. Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Unocal 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. 3/11/91 -4- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (Continued) Brooklyn Center American Little League 7709 Colfax Ave. N. Iten Field 60th and Xerxes Brooklyn Center Athletic Boosters 5620 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Church of the Nazarene 501 - 73rd Ave. N. Brooklyn Ctr. Community Ctr. 6301 Shingle Creek Pky. Brooklyn Ctr. High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Ctr. National Little League 5312 N. Lilac Dr. Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 N. Lilac Dr. Community Emergency Assistance Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. Cross of Glory Lutheran Church 5929 Brooklyn Blvd. Davanni's 5937 Summit Dr. Day's Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Earle Brown Element. School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Econo Lodge 6445 James Circle Evergreen Pk. Element. School 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops 1236 Brookdale Center Glico Harmony Foods Corp. 719 Swift Street Sears 1297 Brookdale Center Hickory Farms Brookdale Mall Ind. School Dist. No. 279 7020 Perry Ave. N. Inn On the Farm 6155 Earle Brown Dr. Jerry's NewMarket 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Northport Element. School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Pizza Hut, Inc. 6000 Shingle Crk. Pky. Pizza Hut, Inc. 5806 Xerxes Ave. N. Red Lobster Restaurant 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Subway 1345 Brookdale Mall Superamerica Serv. Stn. #58 1901 57th Ave. N. Superamerica Serv. Stn. #4160 6545 W. River Road 3/11/91 - 5 - FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (Continued) Taco Bell 1150 Brookdale Center Taco Bell #3378 5532 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane PTA 7020 Perry Ave. N. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center Principal Financial 6160 Shingle Creek Pky. Ryan Management 6160 & 6200 Shingle Ck. Pky. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Maranatha Cons. Baptist Home 5401 - 69th Ave. N. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center Ryan Management 6160 & 6200 Shingle Ck. Pky. Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn BIvd. Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Builder's Square 3600 63rd Ave. N. Fingerhut Telemarketing 6860 Shingle Crk. Pky. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Crk. Pky. TCR Corporation 1600 - 67th Ave. N. North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. Maranatha Cons. Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT Children's Palace #81 5900 Shingle Crk. Pky. Mr. Movies 1964 - 57th Ave. N. SWIMMING POOLS Brooklyn Center Comm. Ctr. 6301 Shingle Crk. Pky. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager noted a public hearing was required for the second reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, Adding New Section 18 -103, Providing for the Issuance of Citations on the Surface of Twin Lakes. He indicated staff recommended approval of this item. 3/11/91 -6- Mayor Pro tem Scott opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18 of the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances, Adding New Section 18 -103, Providing for the Issuance of Citations on the Surface of Twin Lakes at 7:16 p.m. She inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. No one appeared to speak, and she entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by CounciImember Pedlar to close the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 91 -02 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, ADDING NEW SECTION 18 -103, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS ON THE SURFACE OF TWIN LAKES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 91 -76 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF DAVID AULT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -77 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF BENJAMIN CHATELLE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 3/11/91 -7- RESOLUTION NO. 91 -78 Member Jerry edlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: rY g P RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF BARBARA SEXTON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS HUMBOLDT /CAMDEN TASK FORCE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The City Manager briefly reviewed this item, noting the Finding #2, Recommendation 1 section referring to action in the Humboldt /Camden Task Force Implementation PIan had been modified at the request of the Council. Councilmember Cohen noted he had originally requested the change and that the wording was satisfactory as modified. Mayor Pro tem Scott thanked the City Manager for his attention to this item. There was a motion by Councilmember Cohen and seconded by Councilmember Rosene to approve the proposed modification to the Implementation Plan. The motion passed unanimously. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The City Manager reported Mayor Paulson, Councilmember Cohen and himself had attended a legislative hearing in the city of Crystal regarding the inequitable shift in tax dollars proposed. Mayor Paulson tested to oppose this change, and the consensus was that certain cities had been unfairly singled out for reduction in tax dollars. The City Manager reviewed a memo to the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) from the City of Savage in regard to transportation funding. It noted Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) funds had been transferred from the Highway Trust Fund into the State's general fund and contained information regarding the legality of this move. The memo included a survey form prepared by the Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA) which requested cities to respond in regard to pursuing the matter. The City Manager indicated staff had drafted responses to the survey questions, and he requested Council input regarding the proposed responses. Councilmember Cohen reported he had attended a meeting regarding this item and stated the two issues under consideration were whether the transferring of MVET dollars should be challenged by a lawsuit or whether the issue should be put on the ballot as a possible constitutional amendment. He indicated there appeared to be some Iegal basis for either 3/11/91 .8- action, although he opposed the prospect of challenging the constitutionality of the action. He felt to do so would not be a wise use of time or finances and felt it was important to pursue other sources of funding highway improvements. The Director of Public Works commented staff concurred with Councilmember Cohen's views regarding the inadvisability of proceeding with a lawsuit against the State. Mayor Pro tem Scott questioned how the loss of state aid would affect the City in terms of financing City projects. The Director of Public Works responded that current projects would proceed as planned; however, there would be less financing available for future projects. Councilmember Rosene questioned an item in the survey regarding removing funding subsidies for alternative fuels. The Director of Public Works stated the City's proposed agreement with this survey question did not indicate lack of support for alternative fuels; rather, that the issue was due to be addressed separately through pending legislation. The City Manager suggested the Council qualify certain questionnaire answers by attaching a memo. In regard to the alternative fuel question, he indicated staff could state that if the situation changes, the City would object to the loss of funding on that item, as it supported alternative fuels. The Council concurred with this suggestion. In response to Councilmember Pedlar's question, the City Manager explained that stability in funding sources was requested to insure money would be available to complete projects started. There was a motion by Councilmember Pedlar and seconded by Councilmember Rosene authorizing staff to return the questionnaire with the recommended amendments as discussed. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS fCONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 91 -79 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION COMMENDING VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. 3/11/91 _ 9 _ I r RESOLUTION NO. 91 -80 Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO THE MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE OPPOSING THE CAPPING OF THE FISCAL DISPARITIES POOL AT 1991 LEVELS The Council briefly discussed this item, and concurred to send copies of the resolution to the North Metro Mayors Association, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) and the State Legislature. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Jerry Pedlar, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -81 Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES FUND TO PURCHASE A LEASED VEHICLE FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S USE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Rosene and seconded by Councilmember Cohen to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor Recorded and transcribed by: Ann J. Odden Northern Counties Secretarial Service 3/11191 - 10- i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3 -2 25 -91 Agenda Item Number O a -' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERSONNEL DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature itle M � P MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • The attached ordinance is offered to the city council for a first reading this evening. It would give authority to the city manager to grant newly hired employees the ability to accrue vacation leave benefits in excess of the established schedule outlined in Section 17 -111 of the City ordinances. The city manager could also grant a new employee a bank of sick leave not to exceed 96 hours that must be earned by the employee before additional hours accumulate. The city council has previously authorized these exceptions to the ordinance when the City wished to hire experienced employees who came from previous employment positions where certain leave benefits were being earned at a higher level than that provided for in the City's ordinances. The city manager's authority would apply only to new hirees and the amended ordinance would alleviate the need to bring these routine items before the city council. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approve for a first reading an Ordinance Amending Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances Regarding Personnel. • , CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 17 regarding personnel. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PERSONNEL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 17 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 17 -111. VACATION LEAVE. 1. Amount. Permanent employees shall earn vacation leave at the rate of 6.67 hours for each calendar month of full - time service or major fraction thereof. Permanent employees with five consecutive years of service through ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation leave at the rate of 120 hours per year. Permanent employees with more than ten consecutive years of service shall earn vacation leave according to the following schedule: During 11th year of service 128 hours per year. During 12th year of service 136 hours per year. During 13th year of service 144 hours per year. During 14th year of service 152 hours per year During 15th year of service and during each year of service thereafter 160 hours per year. Vacation leave in excess of the established amount specified in this section may be granted to newly hired employees by the City Manager in the best interests of the City. Employees using earned vacation leave or sick leave shall be considered to be working for the purpose of accumulating additional vacation leave. ORDINANCE NO. Section 17 -112. SICK LEAVE. 1. Eligibility. Sick leave with pay shall be granted to probationary and permanent employees at the rate of eight hours for each calendar month of full -time service or major fraction thereof. An advance of a maximum of 96 hours of sick leave which must be earned before additional hours accumulate may be granted to newly hired employees by the City Manager in the best interests of the City. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon (30) days following its legal publication. Todd Paulson, Mayor .ATTEST• Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/25/91 Agenda hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Designation of Certain Land DEPT. APPROVAL: C, - /�t )4oVU6q Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER S REVIEW/RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) On February 25, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91 -63 which approved Planning Commission Application No. 90028 submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. which was a request for a rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to Planned Unit Development /R1 (One Family Residential) and 0-1 (Public Open Space) of an approximate 17.5 acre tract of land lying westerly of France Avenue North and south of the existing 51st Avenue North right -of -way. The City Council also approved Planning Commission Application No. 90029 also submitted by Twin View Development, Inc. which was a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide said property into 25 single - family lots and two outlots. As part of this process, the City Council must adopt a housekeeping type of ordinance amendment which describes the land being rezoned under its new zoning designation. This description is proposed to be based on the new legal description contained in the pending plat. Such an ordinance amendment is being offered this evening for a first reading by the City Council. The ordinance amendment describes the area which includes the 25 single- family lots under the zoning designation PUD /R1. Outlot A, which has been rezoned to Public Open Space is now described under the Public Open Space District (O -1). Finally, the area designated as Outlot B on the proposed plat would remain in its current I -2 • zoning designation. Attached is a copy of the plat highlighting the areas and their zoning designations. • Summary Explanation Page 2 March 25, 1991 Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt for a first reading the proposed ordinance amendment describing the property based on the new zoning designations consistent with Planning Commission Application Nos. 90028 and 90029. i D a] N � � N T WI N VIEW MEADOWS N w t tv ; PUD /R1 Lo Q - f 1. D a' 10 9 8 7 �6 6 a 9 2 t o LU 2 AVENUE Q Z �. OUTLOT A — 61ST NORTH LU \'\ 0 - i3 . t2 i i t0 9 8 T 6 5 3 2 1 a \ 2 a \ I -2 \ OUTLOT B i � N Fb CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1991 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1210. GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (I -2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (I- 2) General Industry District zoning classification: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 10, bounded by the following: [the north line of Government Lot 2 on the north] the south line of Block 2 Twin View Meadows Addition on the north: France Avenue on the east; the northerly right -of -way line of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railroad on the south; [a straight line extension of a line drawn 615 west of the east line of Tract D, Registered Land Survey No. 235] Outlot B, Twin View Meadows Addition, on the west. Outlot B, Twin View Meadows Addition. Section 35 -1220. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (0 -1) . The following properties are hereby established as being within the (0 -1) Public Open Space District zoning classification: Outlot A, Twin View Meadows Addition. Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 1. The following properties are designated as PUD /R1 (Planned Unit Development /One Family Residential): ORDINANCE NO. Lots 1_through 12 Block 1 and Lots 1 through 13, Block 2, Twin View Meadows Addition. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/25/9 Agenda hem Number Fa— REQUEST FOR COUNCIL. CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROV Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • On February 25, 1991 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 91003 which was a request for rezoning from R5 (Multiple Family Residential) to R1 (Single Family Residential) of a 41' x 132' strip of land belonging to the property at 5211 Xerxes Avenue North. This application was submitted by Frances Lunacek. This rezoning in effect acknowledged how this 41' x 132' strip of land had been used for many years. Planning Commission Application No. 91004 was also approved by the City Council at this February 25, 1991 meeting. This application was a request for preliminary plat approval to transfer said strip of land from the property at 5211 Xerxes to the property at 5201 Xerxes Avenue North. The City Council also had a first reading of an ordinance amendment which described the rezoned land under its new zoning designation based on the new legal description proposed under the preliminary plat. This ordinance amendment is offered for public hearing and Council consideration at Monday evening's meeting. Recommendation The final plat has not yet been brought forward by the applicant • for approval by the City Council, therefore, the description contained in the proposed ordinance amendment is nonexistent and Summary Explanation Page 2 March 25, 1991 will be so until the plat has been given final approval and filed with the County. We recommend continuation of this matter following public hearing by the City Council. Once the plat has been given final approval and filed with the County, this ordinance amendment can be brought back for Council adoption. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LUNACEK ADDITION rFr� AND SONS MT 1 I t•,( }DITUN'I .0 » F ?.( }T 3 i to 4 1�rI�a Nr OWNER /SVROWDER fr4� «a F 1w.�4 it Al• ru " m mT u 1 SAaI a r SEARING NOTE, "In. «, eeaN • es� 's • 1A T a [N'.S • f , 11 Z • ... wl.�n •� fi" IISIIOISI or TNS MM W S VRVEYOR /DE SIONER MM •SAWN/ It At MCAT I T TIN es.". l•n1 1—,—. a+a I W RAT SI ILA M•AOML 'M SON Nil . IeT A.I •• 1 10 ����'� I /W AodrN" •. ••41Tn I•r4, 11" ee ry) / V IN t ' T MM M.S•lTi �! Own. N M4 ti M M M4 W rrrrnl M 4M 4wN w. •4 . � •w.� • l+.w /Nay w 4r.«� I4ti �f f {t— Mr.1.4 Iwn. nl uw••.nl •v4�►`4 f ?H 1ItCHEi!ihl.:'f BLOCKI aT � e ` I� ¢ " •" Mme" """ 1«00 •ar M 4,'••M 1 AND SON'; � ^ � O � I V� 1 " i •"�"r .«.~•. .w «lr ND A.DDI H - ", 1 N 37 �j •�� wIN r /1M w.4. �4.. r.n.. ------------ --- -- --- ---- --� i 77 - ---�` __ •"."�w�. w.�W w ..• •.dlw r T 1 ^' ARIA LOT 1, SI OCR 4 • 31,0/4 Nt !0. /T. OR 0117 ACR[S CONED R! lii« I 1 '� AR[A LOT t, [IOCR ` tO,Tr0.f3! S0. fT. M Ottt ACRFt I e 4p .y LEGAL DESCRIPTION prt'� I .•� l•1 l F•AM•r`�T S N4bfW 14 h « \ \ \\ .�'- t ^� I N� !r.• 1 Ia+•+ EI•I M mw. M.M, rw.M let' #.0 N.IN M 1..[� N ' • C °NI M IYrh•M Ar N�Nar.n T-4 M. R.^r4 11 11.^^•M w u�4 a - ---- ------ - -- ---- -- - - - - -- w...� « 2ND AVE. eL 253,34 1 . ;: 0 ' •l7SIt NO. \ �IN I \\ lKl 1 /.W► M OA llr a• IUr 1 441 r� rt IUIlrlll I t MtTw• �Tr•"M r•�41•fl n �i ' I mo w« I h—by c•IRIT R»I No 2—y w•• pnp•ne by m• 3 14 yw « under M•11 •w.r.IsMO •M fA•1 1 1 • du y • [ 6 4 Rv01•Ilr•d [tw.• MIIM NN 1•w• •1 M. SI•I• ' • •1 NN—W.. • pvoa ( r l !} T 1 L•.... l [ id' MW—W. w�. IIl 1110 I I W.; =AM LA" Wavvy Dm BROURLTW ;2:1 1 N WS�ID ►�Orw1011AL LAND M�7'TDY i e 1 ' 'i �q " UMOUNODTA "441 ; 0 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of March, 1991 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND THE_CITY COUN OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:, - Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of lyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1140. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R5). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R5) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: Lots [1 through] 2 and 3, Block 1, R. R. McChesney and Sons 2nd Addition. Lot 1, Block 1 Lunacek Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (B rackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/25/91 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 82 -1 (Flood Plain Management) and Adopting a New Flood Plain Management Ordinance Consistent with State and Federal Regulations DEPT. APPROVA Ronald A. Wirren, Director of Planning and Inspection ************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 2 1V.44-1 * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: t No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) This ordinance amendment was offered for a first reading on February 25, 1991, was published in the City's official newspaper on March 6, 1991 and is offered this evening for second reading, public hearing and adoption. Action on this ordinance amendment is essentially a housekeeping matter which would repeal our current Flood Plain Ordinance and adopt a new Flood Plain Ordinance which would be consistent with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines. Attached for the Council's consideration is all of the material presented to the Council at its February 25, 1991 meeting including a memorandum from the planning staff to the Planning Commission regarding the new ordinance and a copy of pages 4 and 5 of the February 14, 1991 Planning Commission minutes relating to its consideration and recommended adoption of the revised Flood Plain Ordinance. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council, following public hearing, adopt the new Flood Plain Management Ordinance which would be • consistent with state and federal regulations. a P CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Data 2/25/9 Agenda hem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 82 -1 (Flood Plain Management) and Adopting a New Flood Plain Management Ordinance Consistent with State and Federal Regulations DEPT. APPROVAL: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report -Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X ) Attached is a copy of a memorandum from the planning staff to the Planning Commission regarding a new Flood Plain Ordinance. This item had been reviewed with the Planning Commission approximately one year ago, but a final form had not been brought back to the Commission for their consideration and recommendation. Basically this new Flood Plain Ordinance amendment is a housekeeping matter which would repeal our current Flood Plain Ordinance and adopt a new Flood Plain Ordinance which would be consistent with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidelines. The memo and attachment explain the various differences or changes from the existing Flood Plain Ordinance. The Planning Commission again considered this ordinance amendment at its February 14, 1991 meeting and recommended approval of the the revised Flood Plain ;. Ordinance following discussion. Their recommendation can be found on pages 4 and 5 of their February 14, 1991 meeting. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council have a first reading on this ordinance amendment which would repeal the current Flood Plain Management Ordinance and adopt a new Flood Plain Management Ordinance consistent with State and Federal regulations. I r. 1. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Planning Staff DATE: February 14, 1991 SUBJECT: New Flood Plain Ordinance Attached is a copy of an updated flood plain ordinance which was reviewed by the Commission approximately a year ago and was recommended for approval. The City Council has not yet considered the ordinance and it was felt that it would be appropriate for the Commission to reconsider the ordinance before it is brought to the City Council for action. The new flood plain ordinance is based on a model flood plain ordinance that has been worked out between the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The major changes that have been included in the new model ordinance are as follows: 1. The definition of "basement" was expanded to include all below grade areas enclosed on all four sides. 2. Provisions were included to regulate the placement of It travel trailers and travel vehicles. (This is omitted from our ordinance). 3. Changes were made in the application of wet or dry floodproofing techniques for accessory structures and substantial improvement to primary structures. 4. Changes were made requiring replacement manufactured homes to be properly elevated and anchored. (Manufactured homes are to be treated the same as site built homes under the proposed ordinance). 5. Changes were made to incorporate specific enforcement procedures for dealing with ordinance violations. 6. Minor rammatical changes were also incorporated to � � r clarify confusing language. One change to the local ordinance not mentioned above is the addition of a General Flood Plain District in addition to the Floodway and Flood Fringe districts in the old ordinance. General Flood Plain districts are areas where a precise determination of the flood plain boundary must be made based on accurate surveying and hydraulic data which does not yet exist. The proposed ordinance amendment will take some flood plain related definitions out of the general definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance (35 -900) and put them into a special definitions portion of the new flood plain ordinance (35- 2120). At the same time, some 5 Memo Page 2 February 14, 1990 general definitions will be added to the general definitions section (35 -900). An explanation of the 1988 changes to the model ordinance are contained in a summary attached. Please note that the numbering system of the proposed ordinance is oriented to our Zoning Ordinance numbering scheme, not that of the model ordinance. If you have any questions regarding the new flood plain ordinance, please contact Gary Shallcross at 569 -3300. Explanation of 1988 Changes in the Sample Floodplain Zoning Ordinance for a 3 - District, Two - Map* Local Government Unit X 110 Section 1 : No Changes j;2- �2-t Z 0 Sect____ ion,?: Primary change was to definitions in Section 2.8. It was felt that adding definitions of Conditional Use and variance would make the ordinance more understandable (the definitions provided are consistent with the proposed definitions to be provided in the consolidated planning and zoning statute under considerations). These two definitions are optional. A definition of "Basement" was added to essentially deal with enclosed, below grade areas such as crawl spaces or non - residential below grade enclosed areas. If these types of below grade spaces are allowed for new construction /additions then this definition must be added along with the standards contained in Sections 5.42 and 5.43. ' Sect_on3: The compliance language was moved to Section 3.0 and.expanded to warn against the more common mistakes and oversights that are made by local building code officials. This language is not mandatory but strongly recommended. 2140 Section 4.0: The format of this section was revised to more clearly state which uses are permitted or conditionally permitted and the applicable development standards for each. This new format is recommended but not changes to this section include: required. Other - Provisions for regulating travel trailers and travel vehicles consistent with FEMA's new standards (also see Section 9.3). If the community allows travel vehicles not mee. ling the exemptions in Section 9.31, then the language in Section ;�� and 9-3 or something similar must be included in their ordinance. Zl�U,3� - 21 :3►� ctio 4.0 and specifically(M was amended to recommend a maximum 10 -year flood j hel U 9 t for agricultural levees that protected crops only. ly,4CC -Section( .4 was amended to require a long-term development plan for uses requiring storaefor signifi�cant of materials in the floodway. This language is recommended for communities having to deal with long -term dredge spoil operation, sand and gravel businesses, etc. Z14 0.4e - Section 4.4 was amended to c'arify which accessory structures can be wet - flood, in lieu of dry flced proofing. If a community's existing ordinance presently alicws we* °loodproofed accessory structures (see language in Sections 4.22 arc _ of 1978, 3- District Sample Ordinance), the language now provided in :.45 must be included in the ordinance. * Similar changes apply to other lcca' government units with variations on th' ordinance type. �s Section 5.0: The format of this Section was revised and the major clarification prove a are as below:, - Section was provided to specifically cite "construction" and "use of space' standards for elevated buildings not in fill and are required when this construction technique is allowed. Z1�o.�ib -As mentioned in Comment #2 above, the language in Section required when below grade, enclosed spaces are allowed. -F94A has specific fill compaction standards for issuance of LOMR's and FEMA does not require these specific development standards;'to be stated on a building permit. The language in Sections 5.54and 7.3 was included as a warning fo th _ se- who_may be r�que� tin LO a nstru� ion i _ complete. t ( �4e- irtA r 1� a Section 6.0 The case -by -case floodway /flood fringe determination procedure was moved up to this section where it more logically belongs and Section 6.0 was also revised to have the City Council /County Board approve the final floodway alignment. This language is recommended but optional. Z.1 � Section 7.0: As previously mentioned in Section above, FEMA LCMR standards are cited as a warning for new construction. This language is optional but recommended. ,� D Sec tion 8.0: If the community allows on -site sewer and water, then language similar to 8.3 is required. Section 9.0: The language in Sections 9.1 -9.2 must be included where necessary 6V AA to clearly -- require replacement manufactured homes outside of floodway to be properly elevated to the RFPE and that sufficient over - the -top or ground anchors be provided. For the discussion in Section 9.3 for travel trailer /vehicles, see e,e(-` comments for Section 4.0 above. -� Section 10.37: Technically under FEMA standards the language and notice in mum company local variances.. As noted earlier, the case -by -case analysis for the General Flood Plain District was moved to Section 6.0. Section 11. 0: Section 11.0 was revised to clarify that non "substantial" 26 improvements can be either "wet" or "dry" flood proofed and that "substantial" improvement must be dry flood proofed or elevated to RFPE. This is the minimum acceptable language. \ Section 12.0 This Section was amended to incorporate specific enforcement procedures and options for dealing with violators. Language similar to this must be incorporated where there is a documented pattern (more than one) of local ordinance enforcement deficiencies. project, but that if the City does not want an industrial use or the underlying zoning of the property, it could change the zoning to something else. He stated that one area of likely change in the future was the Joslyn property south of the Soo Line tracks. He stated that a Planned Unit Development on that property might comprehend both some industrial use and some open space use or other land use. PUBLIC HEARING (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked Mr. Rick Hartmann who was the only one present whether he wished to comment on the Plan Amendment. Mr. Hartmann declined. Chairperson Malecki then called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91 -2 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82 -255 (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO LAND LOCATED IN THE I -2 ZONING DISTRICT The motion for the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Ella Sander and the motion passed unanimously. ISCUSSION ITEMS a) Flood Plain Ordinance The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to an attached Flood Plain Ordinance. He noted that this ordinance was considered by the Commission about a year ago, but had not been acted on by the City g Council. He reviewed some of the changes in the new model Flood Plain Ordinance and in the version drafted for consideration by the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the definitions in Section 35 -900 would be ones which would be applicable to the entire ordinance, whereas definitions in Section 35 -2120 would be those which were specific to the Flood Plain portion of the ordinance. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the Commission would have more time to review the ordinance or whether action was recommended this evening. The Secretary stated that it was up to the Commission. Commissioner Ainas stated that he had had dealings with the DNR regarding the new model ordinance and that he was ready to recommend approval of the draft ordinance this evening. 2 -14 -91 4 lip Commissioner Bernards asked how the new ordinance would affect the Twin View Development at 51st and France Avenues North and the proposed townhouse development by Mr. Charles Thompson. The Secretary answered that there would not be a significant impact on those developments. The Planner pointed out that the new ordinance clarifies some of the language of the old ordinance and makes some additions, but that the provisions are basically the same. He noted the requirement that finished grade be at least at or above the 100 year flood elevation for 15 ft. out from the building. He noted that Mr. Thompson's proposal did not comply with that, but that the requirement was the same under the old ordinance and the new ordinance. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REVISED FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of a revised Flood Plain Ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business items for the February 28, 1991 meeting, there was a motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Chairperson 2 -14 -91 5 i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 1990, at P.M. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider a new Flood Plain Management Ordinance. 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 REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 82 -1 (FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT) AND ADOPTING A NEW FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 35 -2100 through Section 35 -2190 inclusive of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 2. Chapter 35 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -900. DEFINITIONS. Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. Basement - means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. [Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a stream or in the stage of wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. Flood Frequency - the frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded. Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Brooklyn Center. -1- Flood Plain - the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Flood- Proofing - a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or ddlimination of flood damages. Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge.] [Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulator flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water.] [Reach - a hydraulic engineering term used to described a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man -made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. [Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study.} Special Use - means a specific type of structure or land use listed in the Zoning Ordinance that may be allowed, but only after an in -depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (1) certain standards as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance are, or will be met and (2) the structure and /or land use are compatible with the existing neighborhood. Structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on -site utilities including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured [mobile] homes, and other similar items. -2- Variance - means a modification of a specific permitted development standard required in an official control including this ordinance, to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control but only as applied to a Particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship or unique circumstance as defined in Section 35 -240 Section 35 -2100. FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT. Section 35 -2110. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE. 1. Statutory Authorization The Legislature of the State of Minnesota has in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 104 and Chapter 368 01 delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses Therefore, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota does ordain as follows: 2. Findings of Fact a. The flood hazard areas of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, are subiect to periodic inundation which results in potential loss of life loss of Property, health and safety hazards disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary Public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. b. Methods of Use to Analyze Flood Hazards This ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing flood hazards which is consistent with the standards established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. Statement of Purpose It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section 35- 2110.2a by provisions contained herein. Section 35 -2120. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 1. Lands to which Ordinance Applies -3- This ordinance shall apply to all lands within the turisdiction of the City of Brooklyn Center shown on the Official Zoning Map and /or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe, or General Flood Plain Districts. 2. Establishment of Official Zoning Map The Official Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. The attached material shall include the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Brooklyn Center prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration dated August 17, 1981, and the Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps therein, all as amended by the attached Amendment No. 1, prepared by Barr Engineering. The Official Zoning Map shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk and the Zoning Administrator. 3. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood Plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. 4. Interpretation a. In their interpretation and application, the Provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the City and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes. b. The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be determined by scaling distances on the Official Zoning Map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions and there is a formal appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make the necessary interpretation. All decisions will be based on elevation on the regional (100 year) flood profile and other available technical data. Persons -4- contesting the location of the district boundaries shall be coven a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Board of Adjustment and to submit technical evidence. 5. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions It is_not intended by this ordinance to repeal abrogate, or impair any existing easements covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions the provisions of this ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 6. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the flood Plain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of the City of Brooklyn Center or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 7. Severability If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 8. Definitions Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application Egual Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas -5- Flood Frequency - the frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded. Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodwav fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Brooklyn Center. Flood Plain - the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood Flood - Proofing - a combination of structural provisions, chancres, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. Floodway - the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Obstruction - any dam, wall wharf, embankment levee dike Pile, abutment, projection excavation channel modification culvert, building wire fence stockpile refuse fill structure, or matter in along across or projecting into any channel watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede retard, or chancre the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man -made obstruction. In an urban area the segment of a stream or _river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100 -year recurrence interval Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. -6- Section 35 -2130. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 1. Districts a. Floodwav District The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 35- 2120.2. b. Flood Fringe District The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 35- 2120 c. General Flood Plain District The General Flood Plain District shall include those areas designated as unnumbered A Zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 35- 2120.2. 2. Compliance No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located extended converted, or structually altered without full compliance with the terms of this ordinance and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this ordinance. Within the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Flood Plain Districts, all uses not listed as permitted uses or special uses in Sections 35 -2140 2150 and 2160 that follow, respectively, shall be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that: a. New manufactured homes and replacement manufactured homes are subject to the general provisions of this ordinance. b. Modifications additions structural alterations or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this ordinance: and specifically Section 35 -2200. c. As -built elevations for elevated or flood proofed structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood Proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer or architect as specified in the general provisions of this ordinance and -7- specifically as stated in Section 35 -2190 of this ordinance. Section 35- 2140. FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW). 1. Permitted Uses a. General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. b. Industrial- Commercial loading areas, p areas, and airport landing strips. c. Private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds,, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting Preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. d. Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. 2. Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses a. The use shall have a low flood damage potential. b. The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district if one exists. c. The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase flood elevations and shall not involve structures, fill, obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or equipment. 3. Special Uses A—. Structures accessory to the uses listed in Section 35- 2140.1 above and the uses listed in subsection b through q below. b. Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials. C. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water control structures. d. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipelines. -8- e. Storage yards for equipment machinery, or materials f. Placement of fill. g_ Structural works for flood control such as levees dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the intent is to protect individual structures and levees or dikes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10 -year frequency flood event. 4. Standards for Floodway Special Uses a. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent) fill Including fill for roads and levees) deposit obstruction, storage of materials, or equipment or other uses may be allowed as a Special Use that will cause any increase in the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. b. All floodway Special Uses shall be subject to the Procedures and standards contained in Section 2190.4 of this ordinance. c. The special use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning district of one exists. d. Fill 1. Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials deposited or stored in the flood plain shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching riprap or other acceptable method. 2. Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall not be allowed in floodway unless a long -term site development plan is submitted which includes an erosion /sedimentation prevention element to the plan 3. As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection 2 immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel operations may allow temporary, on -site storage of fill or other materials which would have caused an increase to the stage of the 100 -year or regional flood but onlv after the City has received an _appropriate plan which assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. The Special Use Permit must -9- be title registered with the property in the Office of the County Recorder. e. Accessory Structures 1. Accessory structures shall not be designed for human habitation. 2. Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters. a. Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow, and, b. So far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. C. Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP-4-flood proofing classification in the State Building Code provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment does not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed accessory structures must meet the following additional standards, as appropriate: 1. The structure must be adequately anchored to Prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls; and 2. Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure must be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or properly flood proofed. f. Storage of Materials and Equipment -10- - 1. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2. Storage of other materials or eg_uipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. g_ Structural Works for Flood Control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community -wide structural works for flood control intended to remove areas from the regulatory flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway. h. A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway shall not cause an increase to the 100 -year or regional flood and the technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. SECTION 35 -2150: FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 1. Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses of land or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the underlying zoning use district(s). If no pre - existing, underlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential or non residential structure or use of a structure or land shall be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such use does not constitute a Public nuisance. All Permitted Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe "Permitted Uses" listed in Section 35- 2150.2 and the standards for all Flood Fringe "Permitted and Special Uses" listed in Section 35- 2150.5. 2. Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the outside limits of the structure erected thereon. -11- b. As an alternative to elevation on fill accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance with Section 2140.4e2.c). The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time in excess of one - thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a Special Use, unless said fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 35- 2150.2a. d. The storage of any materials or equipment shall be elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. e. The provisions of Section 35- 2150.5 of this Ordinance shall apply. 3. Special Uses: Any structure that is not elevated on fill or flood proofed in accordance with Section 35 -2150 2a -b or any use of land that does not comply with the standards in Section 35- 2150.5 shall only be allowable as a Special Use An application for a Special Use Permit shall be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation procedures specified in Sections 35- 2150.4 and 35- 2190.4 of this Ordinance. 4. Standards for Flood Fringe Special Uses: a. Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings, parallel walls, etc., or above - grade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above -grade and not a structure's basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed area is above -grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and 3) is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The aboved -noted alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: 1 Des and Certification -The structure's design and i LL g g as -built condition must be certified by a registered Professional engineer or architect as being in compliance with the general design standards of the State Building Code and, specifically, that all -12- electrical, heating ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding. j21 Specific Standards for Above -grade Enclosed Areas - Above - grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate: (aa) The minimum area of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. When openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for entry of flood waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one -foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters. (b) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP -3 or FP -4 classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used solely for building access parking of vehicles or storage. b. Basements, as defined by Section 35 -900 of this Ordinance shall be subject to the following: _C11 Residential basement construction shall not be" allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Non - residential basements may be allowed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement is structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section 35- 2150.4c of this Ordinance. c. All areas of non residential structures including basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State Building Code Structurally dry flood proofing must meet the FP -1 or FP -2 flood proofing classification in the State Building Code and this shall require making the structure watertight with the _walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of -13- buoyancy. Structures flood proofed to the FP -3 or FP -4 classification shall not be permitted. d. When at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for such activities as on -site storage landscaping sand and gravel operations landfills roads dredge spoil disposal or construction of flood control works an erosion/ sedimentation control plan must be submitted The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the 100 -year or regional flood event. The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered Professional engineer. The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the flood plain if adequate flood warning time exists. e. Storage of Materials and Equipment: 1. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or Potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. f. The provisions of Section 35- 2150.5 of this Ordinance shall also apply. 5. Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses: �a. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a variance to this requirement is granted, the Board of Ad must specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local flood emergency response procedures exist. b. Commercial Uses - accessory land uses, such as yards railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be -14- inundated to a depth greater than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. c. Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations especially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out in Section 35- 2150.5b above. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. d. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap vegetative cover or other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi - structure or multi -lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. e. Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood Plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where a floodway or other encroachment limit has not been specified on the Official Zoning Map. f. All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. SECTION 35 -2160 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT 1. Permissible Uses: a. The uses listed in Section 35- 2140.1 of this Ordinance shall be permitted uses. b. All other uses shall be subject to the floodway /flood fringe evaluation criteria pursuant -15- to Section 35- 2160.2 below. Section 35 -2140 shall apply if the proposed use is in the Floodway District and Section 35 -2150 shall apply if the proposed use is in the Flood Fringe District. 2. Procedures for Floodwav and Flood Fringe Determinations Within the General Flood Plain District. a. Upon receipt of an application for a Special Use Permit for a use within the General Flood Plain District, the applicant shall be required to furnish such of the following information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator for the determination of the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and whether the proposed use is within the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. 1. A typical valley cross - section showing the channel of the stream elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross - sectional areas to be occupied by the Proposed development, and high water information. 2. Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; pertinent structure, fill, or storage elevations; size, location, and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site; location and elevations of streets; photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream; and soil type. 3. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed development. b. The applicant shall be responsible to submit one copy of the above information to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance in determining whether the proposed use is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District and to determine the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Regulations 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200 shall be followed in this expert evaluation. The designated engineer or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed technical evaluation methodology with the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist prior to -16- commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert shall: 1. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood. 2. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. 3. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than 0.5 foot. A lesser stage increase than .5' shall be required if, as a result of the additional stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach shall be assumed in computing floodway boundaries. c. The Zoning Administrator shall present the technical evaluation and findings of the designated engineer or expert to the City Council. The City Council must formally accept the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District boundary or deny the permit application. The City 10 Council, prior to official action, may submit the application and all supporting data and analyses to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Natural Resources or the Planning Commission for review and comment. Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe Boundaries have been determined, the City Council shall refer the matter back to the Zoning Administrator who shall process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of Section 35 -2140 and 2150 of this Ordinance. -17- SECTION 35 -2170 SUBDIVISIONS 1. Review Criteria: No land shall be subdivided which is unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. All lots within the flood Plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. All subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. For all subdivisions in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe boundaries the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labelled on all Preliminary plat drawings. 2. Floodway /Flood Fringe Determinations in the General Flood Plain District: In the General Flood Plain District applicants shall provide the information required in Section 35- 2160.2 of this Ordinance to determine the 100 -year flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the subdivision site. 3. Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the 100 -year flood elevation. FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi - structure or multi -lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested SECTION 35 -2180 PUBLIC UTILITIES RAILROADS ROADS AND BRIDGES 3. Public Utilities. All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the flood plain shall be flood - proofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 2. Public Transportation Facilities. Railroad tracks, roads and bridges to be located within the flood plain shall comply with Sections 35 -2140 and 35 -2150 of this Ordinance. Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be provided where failure or interruption of these transportation facilities would result in danger to the public health or -18- safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. 3. On -site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems: Where Public utilities are not provided: 1) On -site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or replacement on -site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage treatment system designed in accordance with the State's current statewide standards for on -site sewage treatment systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this Section. SECTION 35 -2181 MANUFACTURED HOMES. Manufactured homes shall conform to the definition contained in Section 35 -900 of this ordinance and shall also be subject to the provisions of Section 35 -530 regarding buildings in the Rl and R2 districts. For the purposes of flood plain regulation, manufactured homes shall be subject to the same restrictions as site built homes. SECTION 35 -2190 ADMINISTRATION 1. Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator designated by the City Manager shall administer and enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator finds a violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the Zoning Administrator shall notify the person responsible for such violation in accordance with the procedures stated in Section 35 -2210 of the Ordinance. 2. Permit Requirements: ;a. Permit Required. A Permit issued by the Zoning Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection addition, or alteration of any building, structure, or Portion thereof; prior to the use or change of use of a building, structure, or land; prior to the change or extension of a nonconforming nd prior to t g use• p he placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or equipment within the flood plain. 4p -19- y b. Application for Permit Application for a Permit shall be made in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall include the following where applicable: plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures, fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the foregoing in relation to the stream channel. _c. State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit or processing an application for a Special Use Permit or Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal Permits, 3. Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy, or permit the use or occupancy of any building or premises or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this Ordinance. s. Construction and Use to be as Provided on Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance and punishable as provided by Section 35 -2210 of this Ordinance. f. Certification. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Flood - proofing measures shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. a. Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new -20- 1 structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures or alterations and additions to structures are flood - proofed. 3. Board of Adjustment: a. Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers conferred on such Boards by State law. b. Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement or administration of this Ordinance. C. Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Ordinance as are consistent with the provisions of Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the granting of such variance, the Board of Adjustment shall clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in Section 35 -240 which justified the 1p g ranting of the variance. No Variance shall have the effect of allowing in any district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by State law. d. Hearings. Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable time for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in interest as specified by law. The Board shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Variances sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. :'e. Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on such appeal or Variance within 48 days of referral to the Board. In passing upon an appeal, the Board may, so long as such action is in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify the order, requirement, decision -21- r or determination of the Zoning Administrator or other Public official. It shall make its decision in writing setting forth the findings of fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a Variance, the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards such as those specified in Section 35- 2190.4, which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the Variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance Punishable under Section 35 -2210. A copy of all decisions granting Variances shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. f. Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may be _made, and as specified in this Community's Official Controls and also Minnesota Statutes. Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and 2) Such construction below the 100 -year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. A community shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. 4. Special Uses. The City Council shall hear and decide applications for Special Uses permissible under this ordinance. Applications shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Inspections who shall forward the application to the Planning Commission for consideration. a. Hearings. Upon filing with the Planning & Inspection Dept. an application for a Special Use Permit, the Dir. of Planning &Insp. shall submit by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Special Use sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. b. Decisions. The City Council shall arrive at a decision on a Special Use within 48 days of a recommendation by -22- the Planning Commission In granting a Special Use Permit the City Council shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in addition to those specified in Section 35- 2190.4f which are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance Violations of such conditions and safeguards when made a part of the terms under which the Special Use Permit is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 35 -2210. A copy of all decisions granting Special Use Permits shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. c. Procedures to be followed by the City Council in Passing on Special Use Permit Applications Within all Flood Plain Districts. (IL Require the applicant to furnish such of the following information and additional information as deemed necessary by the City Council for determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use. La_ Five Sets of Plans drawn to scale showing the nature location dimensions and elevation of the lot, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, flood - proofing measures, and the relationship of the above to the location of the stream channel. jbl Specifications for building construction and materials, flood - proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary facilities. _ Transmit one copy of the information described in subsection 1. to a designated engineer or other expert person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary, in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other technical matters. Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated engineer or expert, the City Council shall determine the specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood hazard. -23- a d. Factors Upon Which the Decision of the City Council Shall Be Based. In passing upon Special Use Permit applications, the City Council shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Ordinance. and: (1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others or they may block bridges, culverts or other hydraulic structures. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. 141 The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. X51 The importance of the services provided by the Proposed facility to the community. (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. _(7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. j81 The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. 191 The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. -LLO The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11 The expected heights, velocity, duration rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. LL2 Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance. e. Time for Acting on Application. The City Council shall act on an application in the manner described above within 48 days from receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the application except that where additional information is required pursuant to Section 35- 2190.4d of this Ordinance. The City Council shall render a written decision within 30 days from the receipt of such additional information. -24- s f. Conditions Attached to Special Use Permits Upon _consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of this Ordinance the City Council shall attach such conditions to the granting of Special Use Permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance. Such conditions may include but are not limited to, the following: (1Z Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. ,L2Z Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. 3) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. 4_ Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. (5)_ Flood - proofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the flood proofing measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. SECTION 35 -2200 NONCONFORMING USES IN THE FLOOD HAZARD ZONES 1. A structure or the use of a structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the Provisions of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions: a. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. b. Any alteration or addition to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use which would result in increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or flood proofing techniques ( i.e. FP -1 thru FP -4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in Subsection C below. C. The cost of an structural alterations o y r additions to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market -25- value of the structure unless the conditions of this Section are satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the structure then the structure must meet the standards of Section 35 -2140 or 35 -2150 of this Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. d. If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, any future use of the building premises shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period of 12 months. e. If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 35 -2140 2150 or 2160 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway, Flood Fringe or General Flood Plain District, respectively. SECTION 35 -2210 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 1. Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of Variances or Special Uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. 2. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City of Brooklyn Center from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such actions may include but are not limited to: a. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and the City may utilize -26- e the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after - the -fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The community must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to 'eopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. b. When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the Zoning Administrator shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably Possible, this information will be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. C. The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected Party of the requirements of this Ordinance and all other Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure and /or use is under construction or development, the Zoning Administrator may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the Community. If the construction or development is already completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls, or (2) notify the responsible party to apply for an after - the -fact permit /development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30 -days. 'd. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator shall also, upon the lapse of the specified response period, notify the -27- P s landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Ordinance. SECTION 35 -2120 AMENDMENTS The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of Natural Resources if he determines that through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use All amendments to this Ordinance including amendments to the Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of _Natural Resources prior to adoption Changes in the Official Zoning Map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical Conditions and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of Natural Resources must be given 10-days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this Ordinance and said notice shall include a draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under consideration Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) -28- w NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT OF YEAR XVI STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center will hold a public hearing on March 25, 1991, to consider a proposed amendment to the Year XVI Statement of Projected Use of Funds for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program, funded under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 as amended. The proposed amendment is the reprogramming of $57,000 from the Rehabilitation of Private Property (Project 001) to Scattered Site Redevelopment (Project 914). Copies of the proposed Funding Request and the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan are available at City Hall for review prior to the hearing. The hearing is to be held on March 25, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall located at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. This public hearing is being held pursuant to a joint cooperation agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center pursuant to MS 471.59. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/25/9 Agenda Item Numbergb REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Amending the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Projected Use of Funds for Year XVI by Reallocating $57,000 From the Rehabilitation of Private Property (Project 001) to a New Activity Scattered Site Redevelopment (Project 914) DEPT. APPROVA - :�- 10 �-,, Assistant EDA Coordinator Signatu - title M* � �► NNMMMiFMMKitNMi %MNiMiFMitMNMMKKNiF iFM iF 3F iF iFi��li #�iFyFif llF iF it iF iFMMNKNiF iF MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 10 No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached • rraaewa « a.�rar *•aa* ere**• a► rr****** xw• �c+► xwa�rrr* xa�rar�r*+ t.*. ..x�r.aa. *,►...rrs * * * *�c * * *x.e SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The resolution would amend the City's Community Development Block Program for Year XVI by reallocating $57,000 from Rehabilitation of Private Property to Scattered Site Redevelopment. The purpose of the reallocation is to provide funds for the acquisition and demolition for redevelopment of the single - family property at 5538 Colfax Avenue North. The estimated budget for the. project is as follows: 1. Acquisition $45,000 2. Demolition and Disposal 8,000 3. Recording Fees, State Deed Tax, Legal Fees and Other Costs Related to Transfer of Title 1,500 4. Appraisal Fees 475 5. Administration 1,025 6. Contingency and Miscellaneous 1,000 Total Estimated Project Costs $57,000 7V Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR YEAR XVI BY REALLOCATING $57,000 FROM THE REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (PROJECT 001) TO A NEW ACTIVITY SCATTERED SITE REDEVELOPMENT (PROJECT 914 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through a joint cooperation agreement with Hennepin County, is a participant in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County have executed Hennepin County contract number A05430, the Year XVI sub - recipient agreement, wherein the City agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of approved community development activities in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center held a public hearing on March 25, 1991, to consider public comments on a proposed amendment to the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County Statement of Projected Use of Funds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City of Brooklyn Center amends the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Projected Use of Funds for Year XVI by reallocating $57,000 from the Rehabilitation of Private Property (Project 001) to a new activity Scattered Site Redevelopment (Project 914). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to execute Amendment Number 1 to contract A05430, to implement the subject amendment to the Year XVI Urban Hennepin County State of Proposed Use of Funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center authorizes the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Third Party Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Economic Development Authority for the City of Brooklyn Center. Resolution Number Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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.k CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3/25/9 Agenda Item Number - - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: REVIEW OF PETITIONS RECEIVED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 69TH AVENUE NORTH AND 73RD AVENUE NORTH ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: n SY KNAPP, ECTO PUBLIC WORKS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:,�y No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) • In August, 1990 a verbal request was made to the Engineering Department to issue a petition requesting the installation of concrete curb and gutter on Humboldt Avenue North from 69th to 73rd Avenues North. In response to that request, a letter was sent to the petitioner (see attached copy dated 8/30/90) along with petitions for and against the proposed improvement, and with other information. It is noted that Humboldt Avenue is designated as a Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS) on which the City is allowed to expend "regular" MSAS funds if the proposed improvement meets MSAS standards. Because the existing traffic counts on Humboldt Avenue are 12,500 vehicles per day (vpd) just north of 69th and 9,000 vpd just south of 73rd Avenue, MSAS standards would require construction of a 4 -lane street to allow use of "regular" MSAS funds. Because the petitioners want the street to be improved at its existing width, any project costs which could not be specially assessed would be charged to the City's "local" MSAS fund. On November 5, 1990 petitions were received, bearing the signatures of 16 property owners who requested that the improvements be installed and 4 property owners who requested that the request for improvements be denied. On January 14, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91 -18 (copy attached) which provides that, upon receipt of a preliminary petition, the City Engineer shall prepare a preliminary report, then send that report, with other information, to each property owner who would be affected by special assessments if the proposed improvement is constructed, along with a petition which the property owner may sign on which the owner either petitions the City Council to approve the proposed improvements or requests the Council to deny the improvement. • • Based on the preliminary petition and this new policy, City Engineer Maloney sent copies of the attached February 20, 1991 letter and attachments to all property owners on Humboldt Avenue between 69th and 73rd Avenues North. In response to the City Engineer's letter, 26 of the 43 private property owners (the City owns the property on which the Humboldt Liquor store is located. That property is not included in the tabulation of petitions for or against the improvement.) have returned their petitions. Of these, 6 petitioned for the improvement while 20 petitioned in opposition to the improvement. Also attached hereto is a summary of comments made on the petitions which were submitted. A comparison of responses between the preliminary petition and the second petition shows that: Of the 16 property owners who signed the preliminary petition in favor of the improvement: 6 signed the second petition in favor 5 signed the second petition opposed 5 did not return their petition Of the 4 property owners who signed the preliminary petition opposing the improvement; the same 4 property owners also opposed the improvement on the second petition. • City Council Action Required 1 If the City Council wishes to formally consider the proposed improvement, the next step is for the Council to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the project. After such hearing, the Council could order the improvement only by a 4 /5ths vote of the Council. If, however, the Council decides to reject the request at this time, it may do so by the adoption of a resolution declaring the petitions as inadequate and terminating consideration of the improvement. The alternate resolutions are provided for consideration by the City Council. • Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 91 -1 8 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR PETITIONING FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a procedure for requesting public improvements which will assure that all property owners who will be affected by special assessments if the proposed improvement is constructed will receive reliable information regarding the proposal and will have an opportunity to support or oppose the proposal on a personal basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Preliminary requests for improvements may be initiated by a written request signed by the owners of five percent (5 %) of the number of properties who would be specially assessed under current City policies if the proposed improvements were installed. 2. Upon receipt of such written request, the City Engineer shall, unless otherwise directed by the Council, prepare an evaluation of the proposed improvement and prepare a preliminary report including, but not limited to, a description of the proposed improvement, a preliminary cost estimate, and information regarding the special assessments which would be levied under the current City policies. 3. The City Engineer shall then send the following information, by mail, to each property owner who would be affected by special assessments if the proposed improvement is constructed: a copy of the preliminary report, information describing the City's procedures and policies regarding processing requests for public improvements, and a petition which the property owner may sign on which the owner either petitions the City Council to approve the proposed improvement or requests the Council to den y P the improvement. 4. These procedures and all subsequent rocedures relating to public P g P improvements shall comply to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 5. This resolution is effective immediately, including any request for public improvements to be considered in 1991. January 14, 1991 Date Mayor ATTEST: Attilkio AL21 Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 91 -18 The motion for the adoption or the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, and Dave Rosene; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 :BRIOOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTER FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 August 30, 1990 Ms. Barbara Lippold 7012 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Ms. Lippold: Enclosed, per your request, are four copies of a petition (on pink paper) requesting the installation of concrete curb and gutter and street surfacing improvements on Humboldt Avenue between 69th and 73rd Avenues. Every reasonable attempt should be made to contact all property owners abutting the proposed project, even though some may not be inclined to support the petition. I have included four copies of a separate form (on beige paper) which property owners should sign, acknowledging that they have had an opportunity to examine the petition and the explanatory material (this letter and the enclosures) and are opposed to the project. As noted in our telephone conversations, it is not possible to construct these improvements in 1990. If a petition is submitted, this will be reported to the City Council. If the City Council then decides to formally consider the request, the Council would set a date for an improvement hearing. All abutting property owners would be individually notified at least 10 days in advance of that hearing and would be invited to speak for or against the proposed improvements at that hearing. If the petition is submitted this fall, the improvement hearing would probably be held in early 1991 so that, if the project is ordered constructed by the council (after the hearing) the project could be placed under construction in early summer of 1991, so that it could be completed in late summer of 1991. Special Assessments The current single - family residential special assessment rate, as established by Council Resolution No. 89 -234, (copy enclosed) is $1,410 per buildable lot. This rate is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the costs of 1 986ALLOEAICAWY f "s i Page Two August 30, 1990 construction. It is estimated that the single - family rate in 1991 could range from $1,480 to $1,520 (i.e:. - a 5% to 8% increase). The rates for multiple - family and commercially zoned properties are based on the front footage of the parcel. If these improvements are made in 1991, the special assessments would be levied in the fall of 1991, for payment beginning with your 1992 property taxes. Special assessment policy allows property owners to pay the special assessment in full within 30 days of adoption of the levy roll, or to pay in installments. Street improvements are normally assessed over ten years. On the installment plan, interest is charged on the unpaid balance. I have enclosed a typical schedule of payments, which includes an estimate of the estimated resulting monthly payments (if you pay the special assessment with your mortgage payment). Forty -five copies of this letter and of the explanatory information are submitted to you so that you have enough to give one copy to each property owner. We would appreciate having this petition returned by December 1, 1990, if possible. If you have any questions, please call me at 569 -3340. Sincerely, SyKnapp Director of Public Works Enclosures: Resolution No. 89 -234 Petitions for Approval of Improvements Petitions for Denial of Improvements Schedule of ]Payments t CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Of: BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BROOKLYN TELEPHONE: 569 -3300 C ENTE R FAX: 569 -3494 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: All Property Owners on Humboldt Avenue North between 69th and 73rd Avenues North FROM: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer DATE: February 20, 1991 RE: Petition for Street Improvements Recently petitions signed by 16 property owners were submitted requesting the installation of concrete curb and gutter and street resurfacing on your section of Humboldt Avenue. At the same time, a petition signed by 4 property owners was submitted, requesting the City Council to deny these proposed improvements. On January 14, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91 -18 establishing a new procedure for petitioning for public improvements. This letter is being sent to you in accordance: with the policy established within that resolution. The following items are enclosed: • a copy of Resolution No. 91 -18, • a copy of my preliminary report which includes a cost estimate for the proposed project and estimates of special assessments which would be levied if the project is ordered and constructed, and • a petition which you may sign to request the City Council either to approve the proposed improvement or to deny the improvement. Please be advised that: • When these petit =ions are received at our office, we will then tabulate the results of these petitions and report them to the City Council. • If the City Council. then decides to formally consider the request, the Council would then set a date for an improvement hearing. ��esa��,w�acacm February 20, 1991 Page two • If an improvement hearing is scheduled, all abutting property owners will be individually notified, by mail, at least 10 days in advance of that hearing. A notice of the hearing would also be published in the Brooklyn Center PostNews (the City's official newspaper). • If an improvement hearing is scheduled, that'hearing is for the purpose of providing you an opportunity to speak for or against the proposed improvement. • At this time, neither City staff nor City Council members are either supporting or opposing the proposed improvement. Any decision to proceed with the proposed improvement will be made by the City Council. No such decision will be made until after the improvement hearing. Please review all of this information and return your petition to us by March 5, 1991 Should you have any questions regarding this matter please call me at 569 -3332. We hope to receive a 100 percent return on all of these petitions! Sincerel , Mark J. Maloney, PE City Engineer Enclosures Member Jerry Pedlar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91 -1 8 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR PETITIONING FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to establish a procedure for requesting public improvements which will assure that all property owners who will be affected by special assessments if the proposed improvement is constructed will receive reliable information regarding the proposal and will have an opportunity to support or oppose the proposal on a personal basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Preliminary requests for improvements may be initiated by a written request signed by the owners of five percent (S %) of the number of properties who would be specially assessed under current City policies if the proposed improvements were installed. 2. Upon receipt of such written request, the City Engineer shall, unless otherwise directed by the Council, prepare an evaluation of the proposed improvement and prepare a preliminary report including, but not limited to, a description of the proposed improvement, a preliminary cost estimate, and information regarding the special assessments which would be levied under the current City policies. 3. The City Engineer shall then send the following information, by mail, to each property owner who would be affected by special assessments if the proposed improvement is constructed: a copy of the preliminary report, information describing the City's procedures and policies regarding processing requests for public improvements, and a petition which the property owner may sign on which the owner either petitions the City Council to approve the proposed improvement or requests the Council to deny the improvement. 4. These procedures and all subsequent procedures relating to public improvements shall comply to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 5. This resolution is effective immediately, including any request for public improvements to be considered in 1991. January 14, 1991 Date V Mayor ATTEST: ST: i Deputy Clerk RESOLUTION N0, 91 -18 The motion for the adoption or the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dave Rosene , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Jerry Pedlar, and Dave Rosene; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT February, 1991 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH 69th to 73rd Avenue North PROJECT DESCRIPTION Street Reconstruction with concrete curb and gutter, bituminous overlay and replacement of driveway aprons PROJECT LOCATION Humboldt Avenue North, between 69th Ave. No. and 73rd Ave. No. See Figure 1 for Project Location DISCUSSION A preliminary petition has been submitted requesting the installation of concrete curb and gutter and street resurfacing on Humboldt Avenue North between 69th and 73rd Ave. No. This report is prepared in accordance with the procedure established by Brooklyn Center City Council Resolution No. 91 -18. If the improvements requested are approved, the work would include milling the existing bituminous surface, constructing concrete curb and gutter, replacing driveway aprons, placing a bituminous overlay and making adjustments to various manholes and /or catchbasins and restoration of boulevards. These improvements do not include widening; i.e. the proposed roadway will have essentially the same width as the existing roadway (a curb -to -curb width of 30 feet, except in the previously widened segment approaching 69th Ave. No.). Also, it is anticipated that while the existing drainage patterns could be preserved, it would be necessary to construct a limited amount of storm sewer. No sidewalk or trail improvements would be included at this time as there is already concrete walk on both sides of Humboldt Ave. No. Any utility improvements considered at this time would be primarily localized repairs of the sanitary sewer and water main. Because costs associated with utility work would be difficult to estimate at this time, none are included in this preliminary report. It is understood, however, that any such costs incurred would be borne by the Public Utility Fund. See Figure 2 for Construction Cost Estimate FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS If the project is approved, special assessments for roadway improvements would be levied against the properties which have frontage on Humboldt Ave. No., between 69th and 73rd Ave. No. For the purposes of assessment, the proposed project would be considered as two segments; 69th to 70th Ave. No. (Segment A) and 70th to 73rd Ave. No. (Segment B). The benefitting properties adjacent to Segment A are zoned R -5 and C -2. The effective depth of these properties is taken to be 200 feet for the purpose of determining a benefitting area. It is proposed that the assessment for each of these benefitting properties which front on Humboldt Ave. No. be on an area basis and for 2 /a (67 %) of the actual project costs associated with Segment A. The total assessable area for Segment A is 248,900 sq.ft. The benefitting properties adjacent to Segment B are zoned either R -1 or R -2 and it is proposed that these properties be assessed at the standard residential rate adopted for the year 1991. (ie.- $ 1,415 for R -1 properties and $ 18.80 per foot of frontage for R -2 properties, min. of $ 1,415) See Figure 3 & 4 for Humboldt Avenue North Assessment Area and Draft Assessment Roll FUNDING SUMMARY HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH Se mg_ent A Segment B Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 38,544 $ 94,210 $ 132,754 10% Contingency 3,854 9,421 13,275 Engineering (10 %) $ 4,240 $ 10,363 $ 14,603 Administration (1 %) 424 1,036 1,460 Legal (1 %) 424 1,036 1,460 Interest (8 %) 3,392 8,290 11,682 TOTALS $ 50,878 $ 124,356 $ 175,234 ESTIMATED COST DISTRIBUTION Segment A Est. City Cost (33%) $ 16,790 Est. Assessable Cost (67 %) $ 34,088 Proposed Unit Assessment : $ 0.1370 /sq.ft. Segment B Est. City Cost $ 69,809 Est. Assessable Cost $ 54,547 If the project is approved and special assessments are levied, payment of the assessments can be made over a 10 year period, at an interest rate adopted by the City Council (the current interest rate is 10 %). See Figure 5 for Estimated Yearly Payment Schedule Attached information includes: Project Location Map, Assessment Area Figures, Construction Cost Estimates and Estimated Payment Schedule. The improvements as described herein are feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated. B // a . Mark Maloney City Engineer �i IIII Ir r i 1. Ir11 • r IIII.�r11 . ■�r�•■ . :■ : C ;' i � :. , .■ °�i•r - 1 rlrl�r; .111 �r�r �.� �� 11 11111 • ���������������� ■. r= t � • Ir!! 1111111 ������ .: ������ .:'.,,,,,... � � `� �. �r�■ , �1� . 1 . 1 1 �,�,�,�,�����.�, .111 r ✓. � _ _ ��e Iii • r 11 Ir 1 IIr :. �� : � � SO 11.. •1111 m G 1 1.■ 1�� 11 Iir. �..'� • �1. 1 ■ ��° i11r1111� rr rlrr rr••- =CQ�i � 1111 ■rr111■ � � � i � .. x111 111 ■1n� �...■ MWE ll ... 1111 1� ...■ �rN� FIGURE 2 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH - 69th to 73rd Ave. No. Segment Segment Segment Segment Project Unit A B A B Total Item # Contract Item Unit Price Quantity Quantity Extension Extension Extension 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $1,900.00 0.25 0.75 $475.00 $1,425.00 $1,900.00 2104.505 REMOVE CONC DRIVEWAY SY $6.03 0.00 115.00 $0.00 $693.45 $693.45 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY $2.33 600.00 2000.00 $1,398.00 $4,660.00 $6,058.00 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY SY $2.09 50.00 585.00 $104.50 $1,222.65 $1,327.15 2104.513 SAWCUT CONCRETE PAVEMENT LF $4.18 40.00 100.00 $167.20 $418.00 $585.20 2104.513 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LF $1.57 1280.00 4400.00 $2,009.60 $6,908.00 $8,917.60 2104.523 SALV. & REINSTALL CASTING EA $90.25 2.00 0.00 $180.50 $0.00 $180.50 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 TON $8.08 180.00 585.00 $1,454.40 $4,726.80 $6,181.20 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE SY $0.67 2355.00 5133.00 $1,577.85 $3,439.11 $5,016.96 2331.512 LEVELING COURSE MIXTURE TON $20.71 150.00 335.00 $3,106.50 $6,937.85 $10,044.35 2331.514 BASE COURSE MIX/PATCH SY $6.32 50.00 150.00 $316.00 $948.00 $1,264.00 2341.508 WEAR COURSE MIXT. (MOD.) TON $23.89 430.00 1005.00 $10,272.70 $24,009.45 $34,282.15 2357.502 BIT. MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $1.09 130.00 300.00 $141.70 $327.00 $468.70 2506.516 CASTINGASSEMBLY EA $313.50 2.00 3.00 $627.00 $940.50 $1,567.50 2506.521 INSTALL CASTING EA $78.38 2.00 3.00 $156.76 $235.14 $391.90 2506.522 ADJ. FRAME & RING CASTING EA $156.75 6.00 12.00 $940.50 $1,881.00 $2,821.50 2531.501 CONC. C &G DESIGN B -618 LF $5.37 1230.00 4000.00 $6,605.10 $21,480.00 $28,085.10 2531.507 8" CONC. D/W PAVEMENT H.E. SY $24.04 85.00 115.00 $2,043.40 $2,764.60 $4,808.00 2535.501 BIT. CURB (MACHINE FORMED) LF $3.14 65.00 50.00 $204.10 $157.00 $361.10 2571.541 TRANSPLANT TREE EA $159.13 1.00 0.00 $159.13 $0.00 $159.13 2575.505 SODDING W /4" TOPSOIL SY $2.09 550.00 1800.00 $1,149.50 $3,762.00 $4,911.50 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE -POLY PREF LF $1.81 420.00 0.00 $760.20 $0.00 $760.20 0564.603 4" BROKN LINE YELLW -POLY PREF LF $1.81 435.00 1300.00 $787.35 $2,353.00 $3,140.35 0564.603 24" SOLID WHITE -POLY PREF LF $7.13 60.00 60.00 $427.80 $427.80 $855.60 SPEC. ADJ. WATER VALVE BOX ASSEM. EA $130.63 2.00 8.00 $261.26 $1,045.04 $1,306.30 SPEC. RELOC. LAWN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS $1,425.00 0.00 1.00 $0.00 $1,425.00 $1,425.00 SPEC. TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $2,375.00 0.25 0.75 $593.75 $1,781.25 $2,375.00 2341.000 DRIVEWAY PATCH TN $40.38 65.00 6.00 $2,624.70 $242.28 $2,866.98 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ... $38;544.50 $94,209:92 $132,754.42' — < I y y I p EJAMES. UH, in `►fi . lli IRVIi^JG AVE. N > ' IRVING AVE. N• z z I Q� i BpLOT V N• M ..._ Yw U� 6IRAR0 AVE. N. MONT opt m is AVE. EMERSON AVE. N EM�E M < ' DUPONT AVE N pUPONT z LFAX AVE. N• -,�•� I T � � W w � y y FIGURE 4 DRAFT ASSESSMENT ROLL HUMBOLDT AVENUE - 69TH TO 73RD BASED ON ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY REPORT Assessable Assessable* Estimated Unit of Front Square Special Address PID Zone Assmnt Feet Feet Assmnt SEGMENTA 6920 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -33 -0046 R5 Sq Ft 45,348 $6,210 6910 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -33 -0047 R5 Sq Ft 50,062 6,856 6900 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -33 -0049 C2 Sq Ft 22,500 3,082 6915 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0070 R5 Sq Ft 101,580 13,912 1500 69th Avenue N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0069 C2 Sq Ft 29,410 4,028 SUBTOTAL : $34,088 SEGMENT B 7240 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -02 -0018 R1 1 Res Unit $1,415 7234 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0052 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7228 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0053 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7222 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0054 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7216 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -02 -0055 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7212 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0056 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7208 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -02 -0057 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7204 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0058 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7200 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -32 -0059 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1411 72nd Avenue N 25 - 119 -21 -32 -0060 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7118 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21-32 -0061 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7112 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -02 -0062 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7106 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0063 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7100 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -32 -0064 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7042 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -33 -0074 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7036 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -33 -0075 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7030 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -03 -0076 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7024 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -03 -0077 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7018 Humboldt Ave N 25 - 119 -21 -33 -0078 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7012 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -33 -0079 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7006 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -33 -0080 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7000 Humboldt Ave N 25 -119 -21 -03 -0081 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1501 73rd Avenue N 26 -119 -21 -41 -0012 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7227 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -41 -0014 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7221 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -41 -0015 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1501 Woodbine Lane 26 -119 -21 -41 -0066 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1500 72nd Avenue N 26 -119 -21 -41 -0067 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1501 72nd Avenue N 26 -119 -21 -41 -0046 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1500 Amy Lane N 26 -119 -21 -41 -0047 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1501 Amy Lane 26 -119 -21 -41 -0026 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 1500 71st Avenue 26 -119 -21 -41 -0027 R1 1 Res Unit 1,415 7037 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0061 R2 FF -R2 Rate ** 116.6 2,192 7031 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0062 R2 FF -R2 Rate 75 1,415 7025 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0063 R2 FF -R2 Rate 75 1,415 7019 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0064 R2 FF -R2 Rate 75 1,415 7013 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0065 R2 FF -R2 Rate 75 1,415 7007 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0066 R2 FF -R2 Rate 75 1,415 7001 Humboldt Ave N 26 -119 -21 -44 -0067 R2 FF -R2 Rate 75 1,415 NOTES: SUBTOTAL $54,547 *Assessable square feet assumes a maximum depth from Humboldt Avenue of 200 feet. * *The R2 rate is $18.80 per front foot on Humboldt, with a minimum assessment of $1,415. TOTAL $88,635 20- Feb -91 Figure 5 Estimated Yearly Payment Schedule Street Improvement Special Assessment SINGLE-FAMILY (R1) 1991 RATE Total $1,415.00 10% Annual Monthly Principle Year Principle nterest Payment Total Balance ................ ... ............ . . . .................. .. . ....... . ............ ......... .................. . . ....... ::. "' ................. ... . X.:: ........ . .... .... ...... ... ........... .... ........ ........ ... ... . ............. .. ............... .... . .. ........ .............. ..... . ....... ......... ...... ....... iii 1 $141.50 $177.38 $318. 6.57 $1,273.50 2 141.50 127.35 268.85 22.40 1,132.00 3 141.50 113.20 254.70 21.23 990.50 4 141.50 99.05 240.55 20.05 849.00 5 141.50 84.90 226.40 18.87 707.50 6 141.50 70.75 212.25 17.69 566.00 7 141.50 56.60 198.10 16.51 424.50 8 141.50 42.45 183.95 15.33 283.00 9 141.50 28.30 169.80 14.15 141.50 10 141.50 14.15 155.65 12.97 0.00 ....... ....... . . ...................... . ............. . ......... . .. ..... . ....... .................. ......... . ................... . ............... ..................... .. .. ......... . . ................... .. .............. ... .. ................... ................... . ......................... .. ............. ..... TOTAL $1,415.00 .... . $814.13 $2,229 . COMMERCIAL AND MULTIPLE FAMILY (R2 - R5 - C2) PROPERTIES Per $1,000 Assessed Total $1,000.00 10% Annual Monthly Principle Year Principle Interest Payment Total Balance . .... . . ............. . .. ......... .. .......... ... .. . . ........... .......... .. Nm ................ . ......... .... E31121M SEE .................... .. ........... ..... 1 $100.00 $125.50 $225.50 $18.79 $900.00 2 100.00 90.00 190.00 15.83 800.00 3 100.00 80.00 180.00 15.00 700.00 4 100.00 70.00 170.00 14.17 600.00 5 100.00 60.00 160.00 13.33 500.00 6 100.00 50.00 150.00 12.50 400.00 7 100.00 40.00 140.00 11.67 300.00 8 100.00 30.00 130.00 10.83 200.00 9 100.00 20.00 120.00 10.00 100.00 10 100.00 10.00 110.00 9.17 0.00 ................. . ................. ..... X ...... . .. ................... .............. . ......... ........... OTA L _$575.50 $1,575.50 Note: First year's payment includes 15 months' interest. Senior citizens or disabled persons may be eligible to defer some or all of this assessment. IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RE: INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND STREET RESURFACING HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER`: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 I (we) the undersigned, owners of real property abutting the above - described street, hereby petition (or oppose) that such improvement be made in accordance with the City's currently - established policy for such improvements (check one): I (we) petition for this improvement I (we) petition in opposition to this improvement Comments Name(s): (please print) Signature(s): Address (or legal description of property abutting this improvement): Mailing Address (if different than the address of the property): Date: NOTE Please return this petition by March 5, 1991 to: City of Brooklyn Center Engineering Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Summary of Comments Submitted On Petitions For /Against Street Improvement March, 1991 In Agreement - "Has to be done to help preserve the neighborhood. Road is much worse than last year." - "The street has deteriorated, and based on the amount of morning and evening traffic on Humboldt Avenue, this action would be in the best interests of the City and the residents." - "I would reject (voted yes) if any harm would be done to boulevard trees." - "We favor the petition provided the new driveway apron (concrete) will be the same size as the one currently installed." Disagree We loose extra parking area for temporary use. It's a heavy burden on the assessment for people living on fixed income." - Our streets are just fine the way they are. We don't have extra money to "throw away on streets that don't need improvements." "There is no clear need for the curbing. With property taxes already on the increase this is not a good time for the additional assessment." - "No need for it and can't afford tax increase." - "We never saw any petitions prior to this notice that concrete curb and gutter were requested to be installed on Humboldt Avenue North." - "We intend to sell our house. It is hard enough to sell a house on Humboldt Avenue, without having a special assessment charged to the property." - "Repairs on this street will just make more people to travel on it and faster. I had to idea it was going to cost this much. I see a lot of people pull off it if driveway is in full use." - "Too costly for very little or no benefits." - "We would rather see plans implemented to restrict or re -route traffic on this residential section of Humboldt Avenue. There is access to Hwy. 100 via Hwy. 252, but the traffic on Humboldt has reached alarming proportions creating dangerous situations for residential property owners, i.e. speeding, damage to curb side mailboxes, exiting and entering driveways, danger to pedestrians and children on the sidewalk. Possible solutions might include stop lights, more stop signs, cement Page Two "wedge" similar to that on 73rd and West River Road. Not only would these suggestions help eliminate the above mentioned problems, but they would also increase the quality of residential living on Humboldt and would improve property value with a minimum of spending." - "I would rather spend my money to resolve the traffic problem on Humboldt such as perhaps speed bumps or a dead end! At least this would increase the value of our property and the ease of access to our property and exit from property." Attached are 3 letters from property owners. Verbal Disagree - Raak Krost, 7200 Humboldt, called on 3/6/91 - "Street doesn't need improvements. Street will probably be widened in near future anyway." 1500 Amy Lane Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 February 27, 1991 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Ladies and Gentlemen: With regard to the installation of concrete curb and gutter and street resurfacing of Humboldt Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to 73rd Avenue North which is being requested by some property owners, we would like to make the following comments. Primarily, we feel that this project is totally unnecessary and to proceed with this project would be financially irresponsible. There is nothing wrong with the condition and appearance of Humboldt Avenue. The cost of the requested project would be burdensome to the property owners. According to the Preliminary Engineer's Report, this project would cost the City of Brooklyn Center (which is actually the citizens of Brooklyn Center) approximately $86,600. During this time of budget problems and rising taxes, we feel that proceeding with an unnecessary project such as this would be wrong. In addition, we would like to comment about some of the things that Mrs. Barbara Lippold, the woman who started this petition business, has apparently been telling people about this project. It appears that in order to get her way on this issue, Mrs. Lippold has been playing on the fears of the residents of Humboldt Avenue; that is, the fear that Humboldt would be widened. Apparently Mrs. Lippold has told people that if we can get the City to install curb and gutter and resurface the roadway, that the City could not in the future widen the street. We hope that Humboldt will not be widened, but we do not think that this project would prevent it. Also, Mrs. Lippold has been making claims that are unfounded and we feel are untrue. She feels that this project will somehow reduce the traffic that travels on Humboldt. She also feels that curbs, gutters, and a new roadway will increase the property value (and subsequently the resale value) of our homes. We feel that the only way to raise the resale value of our homes on Humboldt would be to reduce the traffic on the street, but that this project would not decrease the traffic. Because of the false information that Mrs. Lippold has been disseminating, we feel that some people may have signed in favor of this project. If they knew the truth, they probably would not be in favor of the project. I am sure that you will agree that this requested project would serve no useful purpose to anyone involved, not the property owners nor the City of Brooklyn'Center. If this matter should come before the City Council, I would hope that the Council would also agree that this project is unnecessary and inappropriate. Sincerely, Duane Hensel and Deborah Hensel February 25, 1991 Dear Neighbor, I am a neighbor who lives at 7216 Humboldt, and I am contacting you regarding whether or not we should approve the proposed installation of concrete curb and gutter and street resurfacing on our section of Humboldt Ave. Some of us may have heard that by approving this proposal, it would preclude the City from widening the'street. For further clarification on this, today I spoke with Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works for Brooklyn Center. He assured me that the City has no plans to widen the street, whether left as it is, or whether curbs and the other improvements are added. He volunteered that he would welcome a call from any of you regarding this. His number is 569 -3332. My concerns regarding the proposed improvements are two -fold: First, anyone who is home during the day, and during rush hours, knows that a great many cars and trucks daily use this street. This is also the route used by ambulances racing north to an accident, and returning to North Memorial Hospital. Imagine the consequences if an ambulance needed clearance to pass and the cars or trucks couldn't pull over far enough for that to happen. The street, as it is now, enables a vehicle to drive onto the boulevard grass, if need be, to allow an emergency vehicle clearance to pass. Curbs on both sides of this narrow street would make this an impossibility. Also, some of us have needed to use part of the boulevard grass for temporary parking when our driveways have been occupied; a curb would preclude this, also. Secondly, this would seem a most inappropriate time for us to ASK for more expenditures. With our property taxes increasing, and the depressed state of the economy affecting most of our lives, an assessment of $1415 (minimum) to $2229 (with interest) will certainly prove to be a financial burden for some of us. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns regarding this important decision for all of us. Sincerely, /,,, � /, Z Lillian Hetchler 7216 Humboldt Ave. North Brooklyn Center, MN 566 -4714 cc: Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works, Brooklyn Center, MN 3i2i91 Dear City Council Members: We petition against the curb and street resurfacing For several reasons, and we thank you For this opportunity to comment on this issue. We are not aware of how the original petition was offered at other homes, but we were not given the opportunity to sign the document once the petitioners discovered we were against this project. IF this was a common practice, it may explain why only Four households are against the project. 1. Humboldt avenue does not need to be rebuilt at this time. Current levels of maintenance on Humboldt are adequate and the city has no plans at this time to upgrade the street. Many roadways in Brooklyn Center are in much worse condition and efforts should be directed to those needs instead. 2. The reasons For the original petition seem rather questionable to us. The petitioners were blatant about their determination to keep cut some undesirable group and referred to the apartment buildings and "riFFrafF ". They said that curbs would increase property values and keep crime down, They had no evidence support such a position and 'were visibly upset when we pointed out that most high - crime areas probably had curbs and gutters. They could not substantiate the claims that curbs increased property resale value, but agreed that long term assessments on a home makes selling that property more complicated. Furthermore, such a project will likely take a considerable amount of time, and have an adverse effect on real estate values while.the work is in progress. 3. We also Feel that we should not increase assessments in a time of increased taxes. Although the actual numbers are not available at this time, it is clear that local taxes almost certainly must rise because of state pullbacks. We can also be certain that the school district will need more because of growth over this period, Further increasing the tax load on homeowners. Increasing assessments now is not responsible behavior and would be ten year burden For most households. `t. It appears that approximately half of the costs of this project will be city costs. We think the we should not spend city money For unneeded projects such as this. If such monies are available, they should be used For more important uses in the city. We would also point out that the cost to individual homeowners is more like $2000.00. The lump sum payment does not consider the loss of income From such an amount. Making a single payment negates any Future interest that would be earned. We also feel that a rate of 10e is a bit much to pay on a project that is basically communal property. S. If the project is undertaken, we would ask that some additional changes be made that may actually improve the values of properties on Humboldt, We would ask that the city move all power and communications lines underground, eliminating the ugly power poles. Such an change would certainly improve the appearance of Humboldt. We would also ask that the city assure all corner lots that they will pay only for fronts, not sides of their properties. Corner lots run the future risks of being assessed twice for street costs, another change should be to redirect bus traffic From Humboldt to some other street. This has been done before. The buses have travelled Newton, Dupont, etc. Humboldt could use some relief. We would also ask that something be done to lessen the use of Humboldt by commuters From other cities as an alternative route to #252. This could be done by installing stop signs at each intersection. Such a simple step would accomplish speed reductions, lessen traffic, further control speed on humboldt, and perhaps most importantly, provide safer crossing for school children and other pedestrians. In all, we think this project is suggested with no good evidence of accomplishing the stated goals of property value improvement or reduction of crime. During our lengthy conversations with one of the petitioners, she agreed that it probably would not accomplish much, but she felt we had to do something. She said further that this was her project and that even if it didn't accomplish anything, she had spent so much time on the petition that she was going to keep pushing because she did not want to feel that this 111as been a waste of her time. We do not think that these are very good reasons to press this burden on the city or the forty or so households and businesses on Humboldt. Sincerely, J David Olsen 1501 73rd. avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55`t3C MINIM so is ■��■� v■ son • •• ■■ son ■ti .�► mm I V- o r mm mm mm mm m �■■� a E- 68 H LAN • 67 ©�■�_ QGL 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING INADEQUACY OF PETITIONS AND TERMINATING CONSIDERATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -01, HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, a preliminary petition was received requesting street improvements on Humboldt Avenue North between 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91 -18, the City Engineer prepared a preliminary report regarding the proposed improvements and mailed copies of that report, together with related information to each property owner who would be affected by special assessments if the proposed improvement were to be constructed, along with a petition for the property owner's signature on which the owner could either petition the City Council to approve the proposed improvement or request the Council to deny the improvement; and WHEREAS, only 6 of the 43 private property owners have petitioned the Council to approve the proposed improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The petitions for this proposed improvement are hereby declared inadequate to conform to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. 2. Consideration of the proposed improvements is hereby terminated. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. / 00 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROPOSING STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1991 -01, HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH FROM 69TH AVENUE NORTH TO 73RD AVENUE NORTH, AND CALLING FOR HEARING THEREON WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Humboldt Avenue North between 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North by constructing concrete curb and gutter, bituminous resurfacing and associated improvements, and to assess the benefitted properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared a report advising the Council that the proposed improvement is feasible, and providing an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of $175,234. 2. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 22nd day of April, 1991 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 8:00 p.m. and the clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3 -25 -91 Agenda hem Number O REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: BUDGET TASK FORCE ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: i iz No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ***************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * ** ***** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) The Council has authorized the creation of the Brooklyn Center Budget Task Force for the express purpose of reviewing the fiscal impacts of State budgetary problems on Brooklyn Center and assisting the Council in formulating priorities and responses to a limited fiscal resource situation. Attached you will find copies of applications from various citizens who are interested in the Task Force and I have received indications others are interested • in becoming members and will be sending their applications in shortly. 1 Task Force Council Liaison Pedlar and I have reviewed the role of the consultant in the process. According to information received from two consulting firms (McGladdery Pullen and Arthur Anderson) it may take more than one year to complete a comprehensive review of the project. It may be more effective for us to limit the initial role of the consultant to that of a facilitator to assist the staff, Council and Task Force in developing priorities and identifying service cost centers. A second stage of the project could then follow, most likely in 1992, consisting of a more detailed evaluation of various service and department areas if the Task Force and Council wish. We have been advised approaching this situation in two stages will be more cost effective and productive in both the short and the long range. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to prepare an RFP based on the first stage of 1991 for the consulting services of facilitator and technical assistant. The City Council may wish to wait until the next council meeting for additional applicants and make the final appointments to the Budget Task Force at that time. APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE 1. Name n "t h I G 2. Address 7Uo 1 4 g V�vct /�,� Phone 3. How long have you been a resident? 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: - �ty - continue on back - 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force:�C�� V 4� - continue on back- Si ature Date Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE 1. Name 2. Address 0 /Gly 3. How long have you been a resident ? 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: <4 1 Z� � I �vU 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: 2Z 1 �alel�4'1'11 1, a /� ,L ,� < Signat b Date Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 0 7j�i P4 , I APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE c9 1. Name 2. Addres pa 4�'� ?� Phone 3. How long have you been a resident ?_ 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: - continue on back- 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: -c tinue on back- Signature Date/ Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 • y��r � ��. � �.� • • APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE A s�� 3 7 1. Name 2 . Addr Phone S 3. How long have you been a resident? 01 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: I r c O r h`�� � � r- GC /n � ►�-a 9 �o nr P s l � c n s u / � ., q �o ✓rc j0 �� h-c� o - continue on back - 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: el �! vn k' c9 i c S a n dl �� V - continue on back- 5 ignature Date Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE 1. Name 2. Address , 7/0 7- bSZC l4 V6. 1 Jo - hone 3. How long have you been a resident? 31 Y E/4/2S 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: SA�d 4.+ l mnuasT' ; �F��cr tlE -d ��Fl G lE xrr p E',2 S p,yy E ' ) t SGIE''S 13� ��i2t�l/Vb �,dJER.� • - continue on back- -. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: t ' c1 D j3E C/ lit /V - 0 STA/ =F /N� . L� V E + %.ice DF' l' 1JVl't�E"2�.'Z/4 rioN - continue on back - Signature Dat Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 S V(�^71.j4[� Y�i9 r2S ON 7 CITY CHIIP—T6�- C/01"/SS /ON, 0 EX n�R.l erg c� : 3S YE/9wS D F Pu lalw cr �i¢ivpGERf I�t.. k/Op -9.. I pla'R (EN C.Fs AT' 4..OE L-, I XPE2(& 8a06c�IQ4' )2Enuc �}- �ltitP� �N'1ENT?�1 - T�oN Dom' G' o5T - �'F'F�GTIV� m��9StcR.�S, APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE 1. Name % c iko?4 14 c /-- 2. Address S ,S AV, /,: Phone 3. How long have you been a resident? H 5 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: A�m e'i;­ d'�iflcC =, r tr v�: A c P"4c-ct�iir(t -f j e (,/ '/ i -141 V- Al - continue on/back- 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: Let, ��i Arm 1 - continue ory back; - Signature / Dat Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 ' �*v� � C .S %rPS C �`� • �= SC` hc.�.� �, � G� Yt,� 4'� C � �s.. s' � VI L C ("� iS C h 4 "1 A ✓ I<r/i -7�rSe /��. S j�rc'Ucv �u� ��Z C o`er a,ti,,w. / G &a 7! c- -, 1 ! APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE 1. Name 2. Address 1i Phone 3. How long have you been a resident? / 2 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: - continue on back- -. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: tinue on back- . Signature Datib Submit to: Mayo_ Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 1 -3 e� 0 I eeltl�l c G�- i�� C' 0 February 20, 1991 Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Citizens Advisory Task Force Dear Mayor Paulson, By way of this letter I formally request to be considered for a position on the soon to be formed task force. The salient questions in the questionnaire are numbered four, and five, which I will answer in order. 4. List the special interests, qualifications, and experience which you feel relate to this appointment. Interests: I am deeply interested in the future and well being, of our community. I have a large investment in Brooklyn Center, and want to be a part of it's continued success. Qualifications: The new task force is, in part, charged with evaluating the cities current staffing patterns, programs, and functions. As a small business owner, I have experience with h the current J 'ob market , employment and em to ent techni ues. I am sensitive to the needs of employees, as well as the need to operate efficiently. Experience: My training for this position includes leadership school in the US Navy. When employed at Avnet Computer Technologies, I was responsible for the staffing of our depart- ment. My business experience has prepared me for this challenge. Operating a successful, small business necessitates optimization of resources, and creative use of assets, to realize maxi- mum efficiency. This opportunity would be a rewarding way to utilize these acquired skills. 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force. Staffing is a critical part of the success of any enterprise. I will help to ensure that our com- munity is getting what it is paying for. Brooklyn Center has many necessities that it buys on a repetitive basis. We should make the effort to insure that we are not paying more than competitive prices for these needs. I ap- preciate being considered for the task force, and look forward to hearing from you. Yo very truly, Joseph R. Mann 5415 East Twin Lake Boulevard Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER BUDGET TASK FORCE 1. Name —��— H- 6/- i43y 2. Address 0" D A'4 'Orow PVe 0 Phone ev- 7,p6 - d56' 3. How long have you been a resident? 3 C r'<►�'� 4. List special interests, qualifications, experience which you feel relate to this appointment: horneo 6/r w rfA ir�"'�sf �n r�c�ai� go���nr,��� Lr►a a / in '?r)y2 q cc. Aes Ii--b '01 m f� n ?iia/�Frc a #0 use' l / / 2 d e 6u,7 r° cvT C - continue on back - 5. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Task Force: b - car, CZ.�'r/f''"�� t�° lrio���lz�r�� C14( c��rl %eft . • ern , 1Y - ;-a17 S'� � /-0 10d crfrz rl -continue on back- .�, A i aft re Date Submit to: Mayor Todd Paulson City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 J ' my do f�� Z �'f�ccly mac( n�o (�glr �� fr�� roc crr►m z . e adt lror rr,C�; rN Ca, it o illy is ?c r^'�t � 2 ,� nD;;�/�� d �.� C ev! fi! t � � ���' �0 2 serv( MuL3f 4e Odj fs�,?rt CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 3 -25 -91 Agenda ham Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY CLEANUP OF SHINGLE CREEK AND PALMER LAKE AND DECLARING MAY 4, 1991, AS SHINGLE CREEK AND PALMER LAKE CLEANUP DAY *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Personnel Coordinator Signature - title - d, MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) At its February 11, 1991, meeting, the city council approved the concept of a spring cleanup day for the area in and around Palmer Lake and a short stretch of Shingle Creek. The council asked the park and recreation commission to prepare a formal proposal to be presented to the council before final approval would be granted by the council. The park and recreation commission met on March 19, 1991, to finalize its proposal, and the commission is asking the city council to approve the attached resolution supporting the cleanup efforts. The cleanup day is set for Saturday, May 4, 1991, from 9 a.m. until noon. A number of civic organizations will be asked to join in the efforts, including cub scouts, girl scouts, Brooklyn Swim Club, Brooklyn Center High School student council, and the Brooklyn Center volunteer fire department. Commissioner Sarah Pollock and resident Kay Lasman, who are coordinating the cleanup efforts, have been in contact with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which will provide garbage bags and will reimburse the City for old tires removed during the effort. KSTP -TV has covered river cleanup efforts in the past and it is anticipated they will provide news coverage of the day's activities. Advance publicity of the project will be provided to residents via the Brooklyn Center POST, NorthWest News, Northwest Community Television, and the City newsletter. The commission will continue to work in cooperation with the City and the community to make the cleanup day a success provided the city council lends its support to the activities. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION Pass a Resolution Supporting the Community Cleanup of Shingle Creek and Palmer Lake and Declares May 4, 1991, as Shingle Creek and Palmer Lake Cleanup Day. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY CLEANUP OF SHINGLE CREEK AND PALMER LAKE AND DECLARING MAY 4, 1991, AS SHINGLE CREEK AND PALMER LAKE CLEANUP DAY WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission has recommended a community cleanup day for the area in and around Palmer Lake and a short stretch of Shingle Creek; and WHEREAS, at its February 11, 1991, meeting, the Brooklyn Center City Council approved the concept of the spring cleanup day; and WHEREAS, the goal of the cleanup day is to make people more aware of protecting our natural resources and to involve members of the community in this cleanup project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Council pledges its support to the cleanup, preservation, and protection of the community's waterways, particularly Shingle Creek and Palmer Lake. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council supports the cleanup project for the area in and around Palmer Lake and a stretch of Shingle Creek on Saturday, May 4, 1991, from 9 a.m. until noon and encourages all community residents to volunteer their services to assist in beautifying the City of Brooklyn Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares May 4, 1991, as Shingle Creek and Palmer Lake Cleanup Day in Brooklyn Center. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. Council Meeting Date 3/25/91 Agenda Item Nuaba r (DSCVECTR) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCIPTION: Resolution Amending the 1991 General Fund Budget and Approving the Purchase of a Microcomputer and Printer DEPT. APPROVAL: W Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: AV.- No comments to supplement this report Comments below/ attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached • When the City assumed management responsibility for the Earle Brown Heritage Center, r the Finance Department responsible for ment also became res P P the Center's accounting function. This service had previously been done by a full time employee of Al Beisner. That employee left with Al Beisner and wasn't replaced either at the Heritage Center or at City Hall. The Finance Department has been providing this accounting service on a trial basis since mid January to see if it can be done without the addition of personnel. We now feel that is possible on the basis of the following factors: 1. There was an inherent inefficiency in having a satellite accounting operation in a separate location, which required extensive balancing to insure that their accounts matched ours. 2. The Finance Department is discontinuing some less vital services it has provided the City in the past in order to free up staff time to assume new duties from the Heritage Center. 3. That the Finance Department be allowed to purchase an additional microcomputer to further automate operations. Funds are available in the 1991 Data Processing Division capital outlay budget because some other computers have cost less than was budgeted and because we have sold some communications devices which were made surplus by new systems installed at LOGIS. Ilb (RESVECTR) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A MICROCOMPUTER AND PRINTER ----------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, Section 7.07 of the City Charter does provide that no obligation shall be incurred for any purpose not in the approved budget or for any amount in excess of the amount appropriated in the budget; and WHEREAS, The Finance Department has taken on significant additional duties to provide accounting support for the Earle Brown Heritage Center without adding any additional staff; and WHEREAS, The addition of another microcomputer will allow the automation of some accounting operations and thereby provide partial relief from the added work load; and WHEREAS, the MIS Coordinator estimates that the desired computer, printer, and software can be purchased for $4,300.00; and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available in the Data Processing Division 1991 capital outlay budget for this purchase because the cost _ of microcomputer hardware has fallen since the budget was prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the sum of $4,300.00 be allocated from the existing appropriation for Object #4551, Department 20 for the purchase of a microcomputer, printer, and software. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 pate -3 �/ Agenda Rem Number //C REQUEST F OR OR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS it* a• tt►, tt ti, r* t,► tttti �ts��i► rstsasr�r *fss :usiir�rs���s * *r *i *s* •ss+*ssss�fs* DEPARTMENT APPROVAL Director of Finance Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report • Comments below /attached SUMMARY IXPLANATION: ( sup lemental sheets attached ttached When the City Council adopts the Annual City Budget in December for the following year, salary and wages have not as yet been determined for the following year. Therefore, the Council appropriates funds in the Unallocated Departmental Expenses enses P P Budget to.be rea ro riated to 9 specific departmental budgets PP P p pa when all of the salaries u g and wages have been determined. Salaries and wages have now been determined for all City employees for 1991. The amount of $232,196 was appropriated in the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Budget. $258,415 was needed to satisfy 1991 salary and wage adjustments. The balance of $26,219 needed to fund the adjustments was appropriated from the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Contingency account. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Unallocated Departmental Expense Personal Services and Contingency accounts be distributed to departments as shown in the attached resolution. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL -------------------------------------------- Pass the attached resolution amending the 1991 General Fund Budget to provide for wage and salary adjustments. - He, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: (HRAJ) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR WAGE AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide that the City Council may, by majority vote of its members, transfer unencumbered appropriation balances from one office, department, or agency to another within the same fund; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 1990, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted a budget for the calendar year 1991; and WHEREAS, when said budget was adopted, 1991 salaries and wages for City employees had not been set; and WHEREAS, the City Council did appropriate funds for departmental labor and fringe benefits in the amount of $232,196 to Unallocated Departmental Expenses (Department No. 80) to provide funds for 1991 salary and wage settlements; and WHEREAS, all wages and salaries for the calendar year 1991 have now been set by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to transfer $258,415 from the following Unallocated Departmental Expense (Department No. 80) appropriations: 01 -4100 Salaries, Regular Employees $ 193,284 01 -4141 PERA - Regular 836 01 -4142 PERA- Combined 5,312 01 -4143 PERA - Police 8,153 01 -41.44 Social Security 9,005 01 -4147 Medicare 392 01 -4151 Hospitalization Insurance 13,656 01 -4152 Life Insurance 171 01 -4153 Dental Insurance 1,252 01 -4154 Deferred Compensation 135 01 -4995 Contingency 26,219 $ 258,415 and Increase the departmental or divisional appropriations in the total amount of $258,415 as indicated on the following page: ATTEST: Date Todd Paulson, Mayor Deputy Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. (HRAJ1) Salaries Salaries Salaries PERA PERA PERA Medi- Health Life Dental Deferred Regular Overtime Temporary Regular Combined Police FICA Care Insurance Insurance Insurance Comp 4100 4112 4130 4141 4142 4143 4144 4147 4151 4152 4153 4157 TOTAL ----- --- --- -- --- -- - ----- -- ------ - ----- -- -- -- -- -- -- - ----- -- - - - --- -- - ----- -- ---- -- ------ -- - - -- ---- -- - - - --- City Council 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Manager's Office 11,294 0 0 0 371 0 634 0 1,890 (58) 50 135 14,316 Elections 786 0 0 0 35 0 60 0 160 0 0 0 1,041 Assessing Department 4,197 0 1,000 0 232 0 397 0 960 0 0 0 6,786 Finance Department 12,117 0 0 265 432 0 739 0 2,160 0 0 0 15,713 Government Buildings 4,612 231 1,749 0 295 0 505 0 960 0 0 0 8,352 Police Protection 81,144 4,758 3,867 0 848 8,501 1,448 339 12,720 0 0 0 113,625 Fire Protection 1,918 0 1,595 0 0 230 0 0 240 0 0 0 3,983 Planning 8 Inspection 9,235 0 0 0 414 0 549 0 1,680 0 0 0 11,878 Emergency Preparedness 1,987 0 0 0 36 144 60 0 240 0 0 0 2,467 Animal Control 0 0 557 0 25 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 625 Engineering 13,418 0 714 139 534 0 561 0 2,160 0 0 0 17,526 Streets Maintenance 15,495 600 1,100 272 657 0 1,121 0 3,216 V 0 0 22,461 Vehicle Maintenance 4,901 100 0 0 224 0 383 0 1,008 0 0 0 6,616 Recreation /Parks Admin 8,162 0 0 0 366 0 624 0 1,440 0 0 0 10,592 Parks Maintenance 16,215 600 1 159 740 0 1,264 0 2,256 0 0 0 22,434 ----- --- ----- --- -- - - -- -- - - --- - -- -- - -- - -- -- - - -- -- -- - --- -- -- --- --- --- ----- - ------- -- - - - --- - ------- -- -- - --- TOTAL 185,481 6,289 11,782 835 5,209 8,875 8,388 339 31,090 (58) 50 135 258,415 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Coundi Meeting Date aS 9/ Agenda Item Number DDDRCC f / d REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AWARDING SALE OF $700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1991, FIXING FORM AND TERMS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT ♦ *•t• *•tt *+►tts•w,tr�f s** t�iy* �* s�r�i ►rs+isi� :ir * *tftr�r+sss�*s*s *si DEPARTMENT APPROVAL- W• Director of Finance Signature - title ******#*** * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * #f * * * # * * * #t # .4 MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached When the City Council adopted the 1991 City Budget on December 18, 1990, the decision was made to sell certificates of indebtedness in the amount of $700,000 to finance the • purchase of certain equipment approved in the budget. The decision was also made to sell the certificates to the City's Investment Trust Fund. A tax was levied in the amount of $306,000 in 1990 to pay the first principal and interest due on December 31, 1991. Taxes will be levied in 1991 and 1992 in the amounts of $261,000 and $243,000 respectively to pay principal and interest due on December 31, 1992 and 1993. The attached resolution will authorize the sale of the certificates to the Investment Trust "Fund and levy the necessary taxes for the 1992 and 1993 City Budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council pass the resolution since it approved the procedure when it adopted the 1991 City Budget. SPECIFIC ACTION REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Pass the attached resolution awarding the sale of $700,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1991 to the Investment Trust Fund and providing for their payment. (DDDECI) Member introduced the following r resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AWARDING SALE OF $700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1991, FIXING FORM AND TERMS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT --------------------------- BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined to be necessary and expedient that the City issue and sell equipment certificates in the amount of $700,000 pursuant to Section 412.301, Minnesota Statutes, for the purpose of purchasing capital equipment. 2. Such obligations may be sold without a public sale pursuant to Section 475.60, Subd. 2(2), Minnesota Statutes. Accordingly, the City shall purchase for its Investment Trust Fund, from amounts therein not needed prior to maturity, $700,000 General Obligation Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1991 of the City (the "Certificates "), bearing interest at the rate of 8.00% per annum, at a price of $700,000 plus accrued interest and on the terms set forth herein. - 3. The certificates shall be in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000, shall be dated January 1, 1991, interest payable December 31, 1991 and annually thereafter on December 31 in each year and shall mature serially on December 31 in the years and amounts as follows: $250,000 in 1991, $225,000 in 1992, and $225,000 in 1993. 4. The Certificates shall be payable upon presentation at the office of the City Director of Finance, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. 5. The Certificates shall be prepared under the direction of the City Clerk and when so prepared shall be executed on behalf of the City by the manual signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, under its official seal. 6. There is hereby created a separate debt service fund for said Certificates, which shall be held by the Director of Finance and used for no other purpose than to pay principal of and interest on said Certificates, provided, that, if any payment of principal or interest shall become due when there is not sufficient money in said fund to pay the same, the Director of Finance shall pay such principal or interest from the General Fund of the City, and said General Fund shall be reimbursed for such advances out of the proceeds of the taxes heretofore levied as described below or other moneys appropriated by the City Council for such purpose. Into said debt service fund shall be paid all proceeds of such taxes levied and such other moneys as may be received by the City for the purpose of or appropriated to the payment of said certificates and interest. RESOLUTION NO. i 7. The City has heretofore levied a tax collectible in 1991 in the amount of $306,000 which is sufficent to pay principal and interest due December 31, 1991 and there is hereby levied upon all the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as a part of other general taxes of the City, which tax is in the years and amounts as follows: Year Collectible Amount of Levy ---------- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- 1992 $261,000 1993 243,000 Each of said levies shall be irrepealable, but the City reserves the right to reduce said levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by law. --------------------------- - - - - -- ----------------------------------- Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. (DDDCII) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ----------------------- No. 1 $250,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1991 Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue 8.00% December 31, 1991 January 1, 1991 The City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center Investment Fund the principal sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($250,000) on the maturity date specified above, without option of prior payment, upon the presentation and surrender hereof, and to pay to the owner hereof interest on such principal sum at the interest rate specified above from January 1, 1991 until said principal sum is paid. Principal and interest is payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the office of the City's Director of Finance, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Interest shall be paid on December 31. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Certificate is one of an issue of certificates in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000, which are all of like date and tenor except as to demonination and maturity date, and issued for the purpose of providing money to defray in whole or in part the cost of purchasing certain capital equipment pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED That all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Certificate have been done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law; and that this Certificate, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date of its issuance, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Certificate to be executed in its behalf by the signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and sealed with the official seal of the City. Todd Paulson, Mayor Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager (DDDCl2) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ----------------------- No. 2 $225,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1991 ----------------- - - - - -- Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue - - -- -- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- 8.00% December 31, 1992 January 1, 1991 The City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center Investment Fund the principal sum of Two Hundred Twenty -Five Thousand dollars ($225,000) on the maturity date specified above, without option of prior payment, upon the presentation and surrender hereof, and to pay to the owner hereof interest on such principal sum at the interest rate specified above from January 1, 1991 until said principal sum is paid. Principal and interest is payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the office of the City's Director of Finance, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Interest shall be paid on December 31. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Certificate is one of an issue of certificates in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000, which are all of like date and tenor except as to demonination and maturity date, and issued for the purpose of providing money to defray in whole or in part the cost of purchasing certain capital equipment pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED That all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Certificate have been done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law; and that this Certificate, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date of its issuance, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Certificate to be executed in its behalf by the signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and sealed with the official seal of the City. ----------------------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------- Todd Paulson, Mayor Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager (DDDCI3) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ----------------------- No. 3 $225,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1991 ---------------------------------------------- Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue - - -- -- - - - - -- ---------------- - - - - -- 8.00% December 31, 1993 January 1, 1991 The City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center Investment Fund the principal sum of Two Hundred Twenty -Five Thousand dollars ($225,000) on the maturity date specified above, without option of prior payment, upon the presentation and surrender hereof, and to pay to the owner hereof interest on such principal sum at the interest rate specified above from January 1, 1991 until said principal sum is paid. Principal and interest is payable in lawful money of the United States of America at the office of the City's Director of Finance, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Interest shall be paid on December 31. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. This Certificate is one of an issue of certificates in the aggregate principal amount of $700,000, which are all of like date and tenor except as to demonination and maturity date, and issued for the purpose of providing money to defray in whole or in part the cost of purchasing certain capital equipment pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.301. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED That all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Certificate have been done, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law; and that this Certificate, together with all other indebtedness of the City outstanding on the date of its issuance, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Certificate to be executed in its behalf by the signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and sealed with the official seal of the City. ----------------------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------- Todd Paulson, Mayor Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLIC SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1991B OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA It is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center (the "Issuer ") as follows: 1. Finding,-Authorization ' 1.1 It is hereby found and determined that it is necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the Issuer for the Issuer to issue its general obligation tax increment refunding bonds in order to provide funds to refund a portion of the outstanding principal amount of the Issuer's General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985 (the "Prior Bonds "), the proceeds of which were used to pay public redevelopment costs of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Project (the "Project "). p 1.2 The Issuer, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 'Sections 469.174 through 469.179 has established 'a tax increment financing district within the Project pursuant to a tax increment financing plan (the "Plan "). The Issuer is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178 to (a) issue its general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing expenditures of the Issuer incurred pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, subd. 4 for certain public improvements within the Project; and (b) to provide for the issuance of such bonds in the manner provided by, and subject to the limitations of, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. 2. Sale of Bonds 2.1 In order to provide funds to refund the Prior Bonds, the Issuer shall issue its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1991E (the "Bonds ") in the principal amount of approximately $3,935,000. The Issuer reserves the right to reduce or increase the principal amount of the Bonds as provided in the Official Terms of offering. Any excess of the purchase price of the Bonds over the minimum bid amount shall be credited to the debt service fund for the Bonds to pay interest first due on the Bonds. 2.2 The Bonds shall be issued, sold and delivered in accordance with the Official Terms of Bond Offering, attached hereto as Appendix A. 3. Award of Bonds, Advertisement, Public Hearing 3.1 The City Clerk of the Issuer is authorized and directed to cause. advertisement for sealed bids for the purchase of the Bonds to be published in the manner required by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and in any additional publications as the City Clerk may determine to be suitable. Such advertisement for sealed bids shall be in substantially form attached hereto as Appendix B. i RESOLUTION NO. 3.2 The City Clerk is authorized to and directed to cause the notice of public hearing relating to the issuance of the Bonds to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before April 9, 1991. Such notice of public hearing shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Appendix C. i 3.3. Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Manager or his designee on Monday, April 22, 1991, at 10:30 a.m., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted, Incorporated, the Issuer's fiscal consultant. A public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds shall be held on April 22, 1991, at 7:00 .m. Consideration for award and of the Bonds will be b the City ty Council following such public hearing on the same date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, this 25th day of March, 1991. Offered by: Seconded by: . Roll Call: 'Ayes: Nays: Absent: Mayor G City Manager (SEAL) i RESOLUTION NO. APPENDIX A:. OFFICIAL TERMS OF OFFERING $3,935,000 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 19918 i Sealed bids for the Bonds will be received by the City Manager or his designee on Monday April 22, 1991, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of SPRINGSTED Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. DETA(LS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1991, as the date of original Issue, and will bear Interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1992, interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30 -day months and will be rounded pursuant to rules of the MSRB. The Bonds will be Issued In the denomination of $5,000 each, or in integral multiples thereof, as requested by the purchaser, and fully registered as to principal and interest. Principal will be payable at the main corporate office of the registrar and interest on each Bond will be payable by check or draft of the registrar mailed to the registered holder thereof at the holder's address as it appears on the books of the registrar as of the close of business on the 15th day of the immediately preceding month. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1997 $ 35,000 2000 $615,004 2002, $795,000 1998 $465,000 2001 $700,000 2403 $785,000 1999 $540,000 ' The City reserves the right, after bids are opened and prior to award, to Increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any Increase will be in a total amount not to exceed $15,000; any reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $50,000 and will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is Increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken by the successful bidder will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage g � p ntage by which the principal amount of the Bonds Is increased or reduced. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2000, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2001. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if In part, at the option of i the City and In such manner as the City shall determine and within a mat urity b lot as selected by the registrar. All prepayments shall be at a price of par and accrued Interesty SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge Its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to refund the 1998 through 2003 maturities of the City's $5,250,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985A. -I- RESOLUTION N0. i TYPE OF BID Bids shall be for not less than , $3,895,650 and accrued Interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Bids shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ('Deposit') In the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond In the amount of $39,350, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each bid. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to Issue such a bond In the State of Minnesota, and prsapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the bids. The Financial Surety Bond must Identify bidder whose Deposit Is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are rded to a bidder using a. Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated In the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the f=inancial Surety Bond maybe drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest mply with the accepted bi Will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser tails to co d, said amount will be retained by the City. No bid can be withdrawn after the time set for receiving bids unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds Is adjourned, i recessed, or continued to another data without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be In integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Rates must be In ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional bid will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded to the bidder offering the lowest dollar Interest cost to be determined by the deduction of the premium, if any, from, or the addition of any amount less than par, to the total dollar interest on the Bonds from their date to their'final scheduled maturity. The City's computation of the total net dollar interest cost of each bid, In accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any bid or of matters relating to the receipt of bids and award of the Bonds, (H) reject all bids without cause, and, (iii) reject any bid which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION - If the Bonds qualify for issuance of an policy of municipal bond Insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the Issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any Increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that if the City has requested and receiv the City will pay that rating fee. ad a rating on the Bonds from a' rating agency, g Any other rating agency fees shalt be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond Insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds, REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for. the services of the registrar. If - RESOLUTION NO. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds quaihry for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error wfth respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery o f th Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP Identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the . purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which opinion will be printed on the Bonds, and of customary closing papers, Including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shalt be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made Impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any toss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for payment. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent Information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearty -final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official. Statement and the Official Bid Form or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223.3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda s c' in the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rafes of the g e Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a 'Final Official Statement* of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 1 Sc2 -12. ey awarding the Bands to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting an Official Bid Form therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 1 So copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter executing and delivering an Official BId Form with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that it its bid is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated March 25, 1891 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /V Patti Page Deputy City Clerk - Iii - RESOLUTION NO. APPENDIX B OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE $3 9 935,000 4 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1991B CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA Notice is. hereby given that sealed bids will be received at the offices of Springsted, Incorporated on Monday, April 22, 1991, until 10 :30 a.m., Central Time, for the purchase of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City ") $3,935,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series ,1991B (the 'Bonds "). The bids will then be opened and recorded at such time. The City Council will consider the award of the Bonds at its meeting at 7:00 p.m. Central Time on the same date. The Bonds will be dated May 1, 1991, will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1992. The Bonds will be Issued in integral multiples of $5,000 as requested by the Purchaser, and will be fully registered as to principal and interest. The Bonds will mature February 1 as follows: i Year Amount Year Amount 1997 $ 35,000 2001 $700,000 1998 465,000 2002 795,000 1999 540,000 2003 785,000 2000 615,000 *The City reserves the right, after bids are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any increase will be in a total amount not to exceed $15,000; any reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed $50,000; and any increase or reduction will be made in multiples of $5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken by the successful bidder will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. The, Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2001 will be subject to redemption, in whole or in part at par plus accrued interest, at the City's option on February 1, 2000, and on any date thereafter. If less than all of the Bonds are redeemed, Bonds will be redeemed in such manner as the City shall determine, and within a maturity by lot as selected by the registrar. The City will furnish the approving legal opinion of Holmes & Graven, Chartered, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. A copy of the legal opinion will be reproduced on the printed Bonds. Copies of the detailed Official Terms of Offering and additional information may be obtained from the City Clerk or from Springsted, Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota. Dated: , 1991.. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. APPENDIX C CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ISSUANCE OF $3,935,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1991B ' Notice is herb ' y "City"), that the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City ), will meet on April 22 1991 at 7:00 le P P.M. at the City offices at 8301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Bro oklyn Center, Minnesota, for the y, purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 1991B (the "Bonds ") to refund the outstanding principal amount of the Issuer's General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 1985 (the "prior Bonds "). The proceeds of the Prior Bonds were used to pay public redevelopment costs of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Project (the "Project ") established by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (predecessor to the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center (the "EDA")) pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Housing Redevelopment Authority Act. Proceeds of the Prior Bonds were used specifically to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Earle Brown Heritage Center and Inn on the Farm, owned an managed by the EDA, as to which Omega Foods, Incorporated, a South Dakota corporation, is, by contract, the exclusive caterer. The Earle Brown Heritage Center and the Inn on the Farm are located at All persons interested may appear and be hear at the time and place set forth above. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3 Z q( Agenda Item Number �! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY DEPT. APPROVAL: azv,t 4, - & OK. BARBARA A. GALLO, MIS COORDINATOR MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ; A No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) An electronic switching device was included in the 1991 capital outlay budget. However, a Digital Terminal Controller was purchased because it fit the City's data communication needs better. The Digital Terminal Controller makes the four multiplexers and two modems that were used for data communication obsolete. A buyer has been found for the two Infatron Itron Commander 32 Multiplexers and four quad channel I/O cards. It is recommended that the City Council declare the two Infatron Itron Commander 32 Multiplexers and four quad channel I/O cards, fixed asset #11533 and #11534 as surplus property. Also it is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to dispose of the property through its sale to Vaske Computer Solutions. Action Required A resolution is provided for Council consideration. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY WHEREAS, an electronic switching device was budgeted for in the 1991 capital outlay budget; WHEREAS, a Digital Terminal Controller, which fit the City's data communication needs better, was purchased; WHEREAS, the Digital Terminal Controller makes the four multiplexers and two modems that were used for data communication obsolete; and WHEREAS, a buyer, Vaske Computer Solutions, was found for two Infatron Itron Commander 32 Multiplexers and four quad channel I/O cards, fixed asset JJ11533 and #11534; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that these items are hereby declared surplus. i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is here authorized to dispose of the property through its sale to Vaske Computer Solutions. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3 -25 -91 Agenda hem Number • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) MOWER FOR CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE *************************************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: (� P l P De ut City p Y Clerk Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Two quotes have been received for a mower and ganging equipment. This equipment was approved in the 1991 golf course budget. The low bid is from MTI Toro in the amount of $12,055.00. RECOMMENDATION: 1 recommend approval of the attached resolution. • l Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) MOWER FOR CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 golf course budget for the purchase of one (1) mower and ganging equipment; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company Ouote MTI Toro $12,055.00 Wayzata Lawn Mower $12,760.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) mower and ganging equipment from MTI Toro, in the amount of $12,055 is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 Agenda Item Number �� h REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO REAPPROPRIATE DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES FROM FUND BALANCE AND APPROVING PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES *********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title - mes Lindsay, Chief of Police MANAGER'S REVI W /RECOMMENDATION: - a No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached yes ) The police department has $9,258.24 in forfeiture monies currently available. This would include $430 which was left in the account at the end of 1990 which will be brought forward into 1991 with the attached resolution. The police department had a meeting of the forfeiture committee who made the following recommendations for use of the monies to the police administration. I concur with these recommendations. All officers, sergeants, investigators and code enforcement officers dictate reports. The department has issued individual portable recorders for several ears. This P p y enables the individual to dictate reports in his vehicle, in the station, or wherever he may have the opportunity. The department currently has recorders out in both the standard and the micro sizes. The proposed purchase of fifty (50) new recorders ® would allow us to convert all individuals to the micro size; which are easier to carry and handle. It would also be a benefit to the typists as they would not be constantly changing the adapter in their transcribers because of two size tapes. The department presently purchases what we call "throw away" recorders; so named because it is cheaper to buy a new recorder than repair them. This is because most repair companies charge a flat fee of $65 just to open the back of the recorder. This charge alone is more than the purchase price. The current complement of recorders contains several in need of replacement at this time. Also, the new recorders have a tape counter as one feature. Most of our current recorders do not have this feature. This is a very important feature when the tape is transcribed by the typists. This purchase would cost the department approximately $2,700.00. The department also proposes the purchase of two additional mobile telephones. One would be the mounted -type phone and the second would be the portable, battery - operated type. We included the cost of an extra battery, the monthly use charges for nine (9) months at thirty dollars ($30.00) per month and two activation fees at thirty -five dollars ($35.00) each. This comes to a total of $1,810.00 for this purchase. These items come to a total of four thousand five hundred and ten dollars ($4,510.00). The committee further recommended and I concur, that four thousand and seven - hundred dollars ($4,700.00) be set aside for department training needs, which would leave a balance of fourty -eight dollars and twenty four cents ($48.24) in the forfeiture account. • RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve the resolution amending the 1991 General Fund Budget to reappropriate drug forfeiture monies from fund balance and approving purchase of equipment and authorizing transfer of funds from drug forfeiture monies. i �lh Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE. 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO REAPPROPRIATE DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES FROM FUND BALANCE AND APPROVING PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DRUG FORFEITURE MONIES WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with the authority to appropriate funds from accumulated surplus in an amount equal to a previous appropriation in the General Fund Budget, if not in fact expended or encumbered for that purpose in the previous fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City did have $430 left in the drug forfeiture account #3897 at the end of 1990; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter does provide for the increase of a budget appropriation by the City Council if the actual receipts exceed the estimates, but not to exceed the actual receipts; and WHEREAS, the actual receipts for the drug forfeiture account #3897 do exceed the estimates by $8,828.41; and WHEREAS, 1988 Laws of Minnesota C.665 provides for seizure and forfeiture of property used in commission of crime and proceeds of crime and contraband; and WHEREAS, said laws require that said property kept under said laws may be used only in the performance of official duties of the appropriate agency and may not be used for any other purpose; and Resolution No. WHEREAS, 70% of the sale of the property may be used by the Brooklyn Center Police Department as a supplement to its operating fund for use in law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 88 -195 on November 21, 1988; did authorize the Director of Finance to appropriate said proceeds to the Police Department Budget as they are received to the extent that said proceeds exceed five thousand dollars in any calendar year and then said excess will be reported to the City Council for its appropriation; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Chief of Police have recommended the purchase of fifty (50) recorders and two (2) telephones; and have further recommended that these costs be appropriated from the balance of the drug forfeiture money. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City' of Brooklyn Center to authorize the purchase of fifty recorders for a cost of $2,700; two telephones with nine months service and activation fees for a cost of $1,810; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to authorize an appropriation of $4,510 from forfeited property proceeds for this purchase; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to amend the 1991 General Fund Budget as follows: 1) Increase the Estimated Revenues for Transfer from Fund Balance (01 -3960) by $430. 2) Increase the Estimated Revenues from Forfeited Drug Money (01 -3897) by $4,080. 3) Increase the Appropriations for the following line items: a) Police Protection #31, Other Equipment Account #4552, $1,200. Resolution No. b) Police Protection #31, Telephones and Telegraph #4322, $610. c Police Protection #31 Operating Supplies #4220, P g PP $2,700. Date Todd Paulson, 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. ACCOUNT OF FORFEITURE MONIES I* Amount Rec'd Item Cost Contingency Encumbered Balance - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- - - - Available Forfeiture Monies as of 7/6/89 $14,125.50 ....._......... :_..._ . _._....._.. ...................__.. __._........ ............ ............................... Safe $850.00 $0.00 $f3 2T5`5Q Additional F rfM Monies o ies added 8/8/89 $4,768.68 $#3 275:50 (26) Handi - Talkies $25,500.00 $7,500.00 Additional dto IF a orf Monies o es $ added in Oct 89 $20,659.02 5,93?f 52 - H n adiTl' kie n ( ) a sa d (30)ext warranties $4,726.00 $:5,977 2Q (4 5) Handguns and Leather goods $21,330.00 $4,857.80 (495;QO): Additional Forf Monies added in July 90 $17,046.72 Computer & Fax $9,500.00 $7 051 72 From Task Force $5,625.00 $2 676 72 ... ............ ... ._ ....._........ ............ ............ ............................... ............ ............ ............................... ............ ............................... ............ ............................... ............ ............................... ............ ............................... ............ ............................... ............ ............................... Gun Cabinet $275.00 $ #2 401<72 Additional n ddto IF r a f Monies 0 o es added in Nov 90 $840.11 _ $ €. 3,,241::83,;;: From Task Force $4,500.00 r P h uc a f i Purchase Mobile o e Phones & 1 mo svc $4,639.00 $ #3,1C32a83; Purchase u ch ase f 0 9mm Carbine & Case $230.00 _ .:...$2,87x`83: ............ ............ ............................... ............ ............................... Purchase of 5 Mikes for portables $360.00 $12,512;83 Cost of Airtime i tm e fo r Mobile Phones in 91 $3,350.00 *Task Force 91 Budget $3,008.00 Gun Training 91 Budg $6,000.00 . $154 83 ........... ............................... ............ ............................... ACCOUNT OF FORFEITURE MONIES Amount Rec'd Item Cost Contingency Encumbered Balance - - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- - - Money for Gun Cabinet Deducted twice $275.00 ..;$429:$3': Additional F orf Monies o ies to be added 3112191 $5,828.41 ... $6,258..... From Task Force $3,000.00 $9 ------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - -- $76,668.44 $79,768.00 $12,'357.$0. $0.00 CITY F BROOKLYN ROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -17, CITY GARAGE REMODELING, PHASE I DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DI E OR OF 1 WORKS -- �--- MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: ,�� :' '« No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Improvement Project 1990 -17, City Garage Remodeling, Phase I, has been completed by W. H. Cates Construction. The City Council accepted the proposal per Resolution No. 90 -210 and a contract was subsequently executed in the amount of $21,100.00. The work was completed for the contract amount. Accordingly, staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment. This 1990 budget project remodeled the lunch room, locker room, lavatory, shower room, hallway, and stairs on the upper level of the City maintenance garage. The remodeling included: _installing dropped ceilings; replacing floor tiles; painting walls; replacing floor ceramic tiles; painting lockers; replacing stair treads; and making necessary electrical, mechanical, and plumbing adjustments. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. • 11` Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -17, CITY GARAGE REMODELING, PHASE I WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, W. H. Cates Construction has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: CITY GARAGE REMODELING, PHASE I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $21,100.00 $21,100.00 . 2. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $21,000.00. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Yc7 ***************************************************************************************** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING PAYMENT TO CITY OF ROBBINSDALE FOR WORK ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -31, TWIN LAKES/RYAN LAKE OUTLET DEPT. APPROVAL: r SY KNAPP, DIRECTOff Pr PUB65 WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Improvement)Project No. 1989 -31, Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake Outlet Modification, has been completed. The City Council per Resolution 90 -32 authorized the Mayor. and City Manager to enter into a contract with the City of Robbinsdale for the construction of this improvement. Brooklyn Center's share of the cost was estimated to be $27,500. The final cost to Brooklyn Center is $26,533. Staff recommends acceptance of the work performed and authorization to make final payment. Resolution No. 90 -32 also authorized a transfer of $27,500 from General Fund contingency funds to the Watershed Management Division for this project. This resolution would approve reimbursement of the General Fund by the Storm Drainage Utility. This project cost was included in the 1991 estimated Storm Drainage Utility budget. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. • fli Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING PAYMENT TO CITY OF ROBBINSDALE FOR WORK ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -31, TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET WHEREAS, pursuant to written agreement signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, the City of Robbinsdale has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said agreement: TWIN LAKES /RYAN LAKE OUTLET NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said agreement is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Estimate Final Amount Value of Work $27,500.00 $26,533.00 i 2. The value of work actually performed is less than the original agreement value, due to a minor overestimation of quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said agreement, taking the City of Robbinsdale's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said agreement shall be $26,533.00. 4. It is hereby directed that $26,533.00 be transferred from the Storm Drainage Utility Fund to the General Fund for reimbursement of funds expended on this project. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3/25/9 Agenda Item Number 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -27, COUNCIL CHAMBERS SOUND SYSTEM ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIR OR OFr PUBLIC WORKS 0 .,o MANAGERS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) • Improvement Project 1988 -27, Council Chambers Sound System, has been completed by Sound Acoustics, Inc. The City Council accepted the proposal per Resolution No. 89 -232, and a contract was subsequently executed in the amount of $8,169.38. During construction purchase of one additional equalizer and installation of additional on /off switches were authorized. The actual value of the work performed is $8,748.38. This work has already been accepted and final payment on this project has already been made. This resolution closes the project for "housekeeping" purposes. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1988 -27, COUNCIL CHAMBERS SOUND SYSTEM WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Sound Acoustics, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: SOUND SYSTEM FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Base Bid $8,169.38 $8,169.38 Additional Equalizer 420.00 Add On /Off Switches 159.00 Total $8,748.38 2. The value of work actually performed is greater than the original contract value, due to additional requested work. 3. The total amount paid for said improvement under said contract is $8,748.38. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3/25/9 Agenda Item Number l/ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -29, CLEANOUT OF UNITY AVENUE CULVERT DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRECTOR UBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:s: w No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Improvement?Project 1989 -29, Cleanout of Unity Avenue Culvert, has been completed by Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc. The City Council accepted the proposal per Resolution No. 89 -199, and a contract was subsequently executed in the amount of $11,367.38. This work has already been accepted and final payment on this project has already been made. This resolution closes the project for "housekeeping" purposes. City Council Action Required Adopt the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED ON IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1989 -29, CLEANOUT OF UNITY AVENUE CULVERT WHEREAS, pursuant to written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: CLEANOUT UNITY AVENUE CULVERT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract Final Amount Value of Work $11,367.00 $11,367.00 2. The total amount paid for said improvement under said contract is $11,367.00. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, 1990 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, CTOR OF UBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Yes ) ® Last year, the City Council established 1990 Water Distribution System Improvements, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03. This project implements the Phase I improvements recommended in the 1989 Report on Water Works Facilities for the City of Brooklyn Center. These Phase I improvements will enhance the effectiveness of Tower No. 2, by separating it from the well transmission lines and allowing it to better contribute water to the area during periods of peak demand. The proposed improvements include modifications of the existing water mains, valves, etc. in the vicinity of Tower No.. 2. The Engineering Department is nearing completion of the design of the proposed improvements and now requires geotechnical recommendations regarding material choices, soil conditions, special construction details, etc. The City Engineer has received proposals from two geotechnical consultants to provide those services in conjunction with the proposed improvements. The firm of STS Consultants Ltd. has proposed to provide these services for a lower cost; not to exceed $ 2,679.00. A copy of their proposal is attached for reference. STS has satisfactorily performed in Brooklyn Center and is currently providing geotechnical services for the design of the 69th Ave. No. Staff has maintained a good working relationship with STS in the past and accordingly recommends acceptance of the their proposal as submitted for this project. Council Action Required A resolution accepting the STS Consultants, Ltd. proposal is provided for • consideration by the City Council. r '1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES RELATING TO IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -03, 1990 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, the 1989 report on water works facilities for the City of Brooklyn Center recommends Phase I improvements and the City Council subsequently established 1990 Water Distribution System Improvements, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has obtained a proposal from STS Consultants, Ltd. to provide geotechnical services in conjunction with the proposed improvements, and make recommendations regarding said improvements, at a cost not -to- exceed $2,679.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The proposal submitted by STS Consultants, Ltd. to provide geotechnical services relating to 1990 Water Distribution System Improvements, Improvement Project No. 1990 -03 at a cost not -to- exceed $2,679.00 is hereby accepted and approved. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute a contract with said firm on the basis of said proposal. 2. All costs relating to this work shall be charged to the Public Utility Fund. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. Geotechnical Group w 6 1 lk o 1 STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers Water Distribution System Improvements Brooklyn Center, Minnesota City of Brooklyn Center r T ROPO SAL March 13. 1991 Mr. Mark J. Maloney. P.E. City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center. MN 55430 STS Proposal P -3404 Re: Water Distribution System Improvements Proposed for the Year 1991 in Brooklyn Center. Minnesota -- Improvement Project 1990 -03 Dear Mr. Maloney: We are pleased to provide you with a fee proposal for the above- referenced project. Enclosed please find a brief description of our understanding of the project. a scope of services we will provide and an estimate of costs for performance of the work. If you have any questions concerning our proposal, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, STS CONSULTANTS. LTD. Stephan M. dale. P.E. Principal Engineer i SMG /dn Encs.: STS General Conditions STS Fee Schedule ACCEPTED: I DATE FIRM AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE TITLE Copyright P -3404. STS Consultants. Ltd.. March. 1991 STS Consultants Ltd. Consulting Engineers 3650 Annapolis Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 612.559.1900/Fax 612.559.4507 I Proposal PROJECT i . Water Distribution System Improvements Proposed for the Year 1991 in Brooklyn Center. Minnesota i i CLIENT Mr. Mark J. Maloney. P.E. City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Project No. P -3404 Date March 13. 1991 STS Consultants Ltd: C q V Consulting Engineers 3650 Annapolis Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 612.559.1900/Fax 612.559.4507 Water DistrNition System improvements Proposed for the Year 1991 in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is proposing construction of watermain along Dupont Avenue. 69th Avenue and the driveway to Evergreen Park Elementary School in Brooklyn Center. Minnesota. The drawing submitted to us identifies proposed utility locations and also locations of proposed soil borings. The drawing identifies construction of watermain in both turf areas and beneath the portion of 69th Avenue that was not just recently recon- structed. Watermain would be constructed to a maximum depth of 10 feet below the existing surface. STS is familiar with roadway construction in this area of Brooklyn Center having just completed the exploration for 69th Avenue through a portion of the Palmer Lake Basin. I SCOPE OF WORK The City of Brooklyn Center has identified that ten borings should be drilled to a maximum l I depth of 15 feet. We would propose to drill all borings to 15 feet. Borings would be samples( with a split - barrel sampler at 5 foot intervals and at all changes in soil as detected by the driller. Standard penetration resistance values would be reported for all borings. Groundwater would be identified during and after completion of the drilling process. Borings would then be backfilled with on -site soil. If borings are drilled through 69th Avenue. the borings would be backfilled up to the pavement surface with on- site soil. We understand that the City would then arrange for a bituminous patch. STS would lay out borings and contact Gopher State One Call in order to arrange for utility clearance at boring locations. s. With regard to drilling illing through 69th Avenue. these borings would be (trilled on one side of the street in off -peak hours with signage provided. in substantial accordance with MnDOT - Appendix B. i i City of Brooklyn Center STS Proposal P -3404 After completion of the drilling. all soil g samples would be returned to our lahorntnn for examination and classification. Soil boring logs would be prepared for each of the r loca- tions. A soil engineering report would be prepared by a registered professional engineer and reviewed by a firm principal. Soil reports are not all equal. The quality of the report is directly related to the experience of the individual preparing that report. This i experience can result in a report which identifies a required construction technique or subgrade correction that may not be obvious to a person with only limited experience. Our report will comment on soil and groundwater conditions and discuss pipe subgrade support. backlilling considerations. construction dewatering and excavation stability. The recently adopted Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) trenching requirements will be discussed. An optional scope of services is proposed. In numerous situations in utility construction. cohesive soils are excavated from the utility trench with the anticipation that these soils would be recompacted back into the trench. In numerous circumstances we have investigated settlement' and cracking of the roadway surface as a result of the replacement of cohesive soils in trenches. Though in some cases compaction criteria has been met. settlement still occurs. We have found that the moisture condition of the clay soil is an important aspect of recompaction. In order to be able to comment on moisture considerations and provide specification guidelines that could defuse a construction claim. Shelby tube sampling and i moisture and proctor testing of in -place cohesive soil is proposed. We anticipate that around the wellfield some cohesive soils may be encountered and as we move west more granu- lar soil will be encountered. The degree of additional testing is not known at this time. however. we would estimate that an additional fee of $300 - $500 would be an appropriate amount for this additional work. ESTIMATE OF FEES The total estimated fee for this project is $2.820. This fee would include a registered professional engineer reviewing the soil in the laboratory and preparing the soil report. Charges would be based on the hourly and /or unit rates included in the enclosed fee -2- City of Brooklyn Center STS Proposal P -3404 schedule. If you would so choose. w v e would perform the work for a lump sum amoimt. Because of the time savings consistent with this contractual arrangement. we could provide a 5% discount to our estimated fee. The work scope would, alternatively, be provided for a lump sum fee of $2.679. A further discount could be provided if the City lays out and stakes boring locations. Please contact us if you are interested. Optional services have been described in the scope of work section of this proposal. The alternative sampling and laboratory testing program would be provided for an additional amount of $500. This additional fee would be in addition to either the unit cost estimate or the lump sum fee herein. SUMMARY We look forward to the opportunity to be of service to the City of Brooklyn Center on this project. If you have any questions concerning our cost estimate, please do not hesitate to contact us. If we foresee that any of the above - referenced budgets would be exceeded because of a change in the scope of work, we will contact you for approval prior to expend- ing additional monies. i We have attached to this proposal our General Conditions and Fee Schedule which are expressly incorporated into. and are an integral part of, our contract for professional services. Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by having an authorized representative of the City execute one copy and return it to the undersigned. Your acceptance of our proposal confirms that the terms and conditions are understood. including payment to STS Consultants. Ltd. upon receipt of invoices, unless specifically arranged otherwise in writing. Of course, should you wish to discuss the terms, condi- tions. and provisions of our proposal. we would be pleased to do so at your earliest con- venience. -3- is Lli LP /NL CONDITIONS i 0 o STS General Conditions 9 i STS CONSVLTANTS, LTD. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE i i These General Conditions of Service, including any Supplemental Conditions of Service which are or may become applicable to the services described in STS's Proposal, are incorporatedby reference into the foregoing Proposal and shall, if said Proposal is acceptedby Client,be part of the Agreement under which services are to be performedby STS for Client. SECTION l: SCOPE OF WORK a. It is understood that the scope of work and the time schedules defined in the Proposal are based on the information provided by the Client. If this information is incomplete or inaccurate, or if site conditions are ( encountered which materially vary from those indicated by the Client, or if the Client directs STS to change the original scope of work established by the Proposal, a written amendment to the Agreement equitably adjusting the costs and/or performance time thereunder, shall be executedby the Client and STS as soon as practicable. Consent to amendments shall not be unreasonably withheld. II b. STS shall perform all services, specified in the Proposal, which are reasonably necessary and appropriate for the effective and prompt fulfillment of STS's obligations under the Agreement. The relationship between the Client and STS created under this Agreement is that of principal and independent contractor. All of the services provided by STS shall be subject to the provisions of the Agreement, including these General Conditions, any supplemental conditions incorporated herein, and any written amendments as referenced above. STS shall [ invoice its costs, and Client shall provide payment for all services provided in accordance with Section 3 below. SECTION 2: CLIENT DISCLOSURES 1 a. It shall be the duty of the Client to notify STS of any known or suspected hazardous substances which are or may be related to the services to be provided. Such hazardous substances shall include but not be limited to any substance which poses or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health or the environmentwhether contained in a product, material, by- product, waste or sample and whether it exists in a solid, liquid, semisolid or gaseous form This duty shall also apply to any of the foregoing substances which STS maybe provided or obtain or which exist or may exist on or near any premises upon which services are to be performedby STS's employees, agents or contractors. The Client shall notify STS of all such hazardous substances of which it has knowledge or which it reasonably suspects exist upon entering into this Agreement. Thereafter, disclosure and notification to STS shall be required immediately upon discovery of any other hazardous substances or upon discovery of increased concentrations of previously disclosed substances where the increased concentration makes them hazardous. b. Following any disclosure as set forth in the preceding paragraph, or if any hazardous substances are discovered or reasonably suspectedby STS alter its services are undertaken, STS may, at its discretion, suspend its services. Whether or not STS suspends its services in whole or in part, the Client and STS agree that the scope of services, terms and conditions, schedule and the estimated fee or budget shall be adjusted in accordance with the disclosed information or condition, and STS may, at its discretion, terminate the Agreement. In the event that the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Client shall pay STS for services and all termination expenses as set forth in Section 11 of this Agreement. C. If all or any part of the scope of work is to be performed in the general vicinity of a facility or in an axes. where dust, fumes, gas, noise, vibrations or other particulate or nonparticulate matter is in the atmosphere where it raises a potential health hazard or nuisance to those working in the area of such conditions, Client shall notify STS of such conditions, potential health hazard or nuisance and thereafter STS shall take all necessary and reasonable measures to protect its employees against such possible health hazards or nuisances. The i reasonable direct cost of such measures shall be borne by the Client. 1 SECTION 3: BILLINGS AND PAXIMM l a. Unless otherwise specifically provided in the Proposal or Agreement,b i g s will be based on actual units used I at the standard rates shown on the attached fee schedules, travel costs and other expenses. The Client understands and agrees that the estimates of total, incremental, or phase project costs are reasonable projections provided for informational purposes in the Proposal, and are not a representation or warranty of the actual costs which will be incurred in the performance of STS's services. STS shall submit invoices monthly for services performed and expenses incurred and not previously billed or included on any preceding invoice. Payment is due upon receipt. For all amounts unpaid after thirty (30) days from the invoice date, as set forth on STS's invoice form, Client agrees to pay STS a finance charge of one and one -half percent (1 -1/2%) per month, eighteen percent (18%) annually. The billing rates described in this Agreement may be increased on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement. b. The Client shall provide STS with a clear, written statement within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the invoice of any objections to the invoice or any portion or element thereof. Failure to provide such a written statement -� shall constitute acceptance of the invoice as submitted. c. The Client has the obligation to payfor the services performedunder this Agreement. Client shall not off -set any amounts due to STS because of the Client's inability to obtain financing, zoning, approval of governmental or l regulatory agencies, or amy other cause, reason, or contingency. No deduction shall be made from any invoice on l account of penalty or liquidated damages nor will any other sums be withheld from payments to STS. Client further agrees to pay STS any and all expenses incurred in recovering any delinquent amounts due, including reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. SECTION 4: RIGHT OF ACCESS a. If services to be provided under this Agreement require the agents, employees, or contractors of STS to enter onto the Project site, Client shall provide right of- access to the site to STS, its employees, agents and contractors, to conduct the planned field observations or services. STS shall take reasonable precautions to minimis damage to the site due to its operations, but has not included in its fee the cost of restoration for any damage resulting from its operations. b. If the scope of services includes performance of soil borings or test pit excavations by STS, it is understood that the Client will furnish STS with a diagram(s) indicating the location and boundaries of the site, subsurface structures (pipes, tanks, cables, sewers, other utilities, etc.) and boring/test pit location(s). STS reserves the right to deviate a reasonable distance from the boring /test pit location(s). At Client's request and cost, STS will restore the site to the conditions existing prior to STS's operations. STS shall notbe responsible for, and assumes no liability on account of, damage to subsurface structures, or i4ury or loss arising from damage to subsurface structures, which are incorrectly located or not indicated on the diagram(s) provided. SECTION S: SLAMP ES a. All samples of soil and rock will be discarded sixty (60) days after submission of the report unless the Client advises STS in writing to the contrary. Upon request, the samples will be delivered, shipping charges collected, or stored at the rate indicated in the fee schedule attached. SECTION 6: REPORTS AND OF DOCUMENTS a. STS shall furnish six (6) copies of each report to Client. Additional copies shall be furnished at the rates specified in the fee schedule. With the exception of STS reports to Client, all documents, including original boring logs, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations and estimates are and remain the property of STS. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished to the Client not paid for in full will be returned upon demand and will not be used for design, construction, permits or licensing. SECTION 7: STANDARD OF CLARE STS represents that it will perform its services under this Agreement in conformance with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable members of the professional engineering community practicing under similar conditions at the same time in the same or similar locality. I b. NO OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY FIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AT COMMON LAW OR CREATED BY STATUTE, IS EXTENDED, MADE, OR INTENDED BY THE RENDITION OF CONSULTING SERVICES OR BY FURNISHING ORAL OR WRITTEN REPORTS OF THE FINDINGS MADE. C. Any exploration, testing, surveys and analysis associated with the workwill be performedby STS for the Client's sole use to fulfill the purpose of this Agreement and STS is not responsible for interpretation by others of the information developed. The Client recognizes that subsurface conditions beneath the Project site mayvaryfrom those encountered inborings, surveys or explorations and the information and recommendations developedby STS are based solely on the information available. d. The services of STS's field personnel neither include responsibility for the superintendence of the construction project nor direction or control of the actual work of the contractor, its subcontractors, or other materialmen or service providers not engagedby STS. It is further agreed that STS is not responsible for, nor is it to review, the adequacy of job safety on the Project. SECTION 8: LTKr ATION OF PROFESSIONAL LUBIL=r a. IT IS AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S MAXIMUM RECOVERYAGAINST STS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES J PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, IS $50,000 OR THE AMOUNT OF STS'S FEE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER, IT IS EXPRESSLYAGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDYAGAINST STS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PERFORMED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, IS THE AWARD OF DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED THE STIPULATED $50,000 FIGURE, OR THE AMOUNT OF STS'S FEE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. IN NO EVENT SHALL STS BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, FOR CLIENT'S LOSS OF PROFITS, DELAY DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE ARISING AT ANYTIME OR FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER. b. The Client further agrees to notify any contractor or subcontractor who may perform work in connection with any design, report or study prepasedby STS of such limitation of professional liability for design defects, breach of contract, errors, omissions or professional negligence and require as a condition precedent to their performing their work a like limitation of liability on their past as against STS. c. Documents, includingbut not limited to, technical reports, or logs,field data,:fteldnotes, laboratory test data, calculations and estimates furnished to the Client or its agents pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the Client or others on extensions of the Project or on any other project. Any reuse without STS's written consent will be at Client's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to STS or to STS's contractor(s) and Client shall indemnify and hold harmless STS and STS's contractors) from all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of or resulting therefrom. d. Under no circumstances shall STS be liable for extra work or other consequences due to changed conditions or for costs related to failure ofthe construction contractor or materialmen or service providers to install work in accordance with the plans and specifications. e. NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF SECTION 8aABOVE, IT IS FURTHERAGREED THAT IF STS'S SERVICES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT CONSIST OF LABORATORY TESTING AND /OR CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS OR OTHER MATERIALS WITHOUT ENGINEERING EVALUATION OR STUDY, THE CLIENT'S MAXIMUM RECOVERY FOR SUCH SERVICES WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE SHALL NOT EXCEED STS'S FEES FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED THAT THE CLIENT'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AGAINST STS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE IS THE AWARD OF DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF STS'S FEES. IN NO EVENT SHALL STS BE LIABLE, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, FOR CLIENT'S LASS OF PROFITS, DELAY DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE ARISING AT ANYTIME OR FROM ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER. I SECTION 9: T.TARTLITY INSURANCE S represents that it and its agents, and consultants employed by it, is and are protected by Worker's ompensation insurance and that STS has coverage under liability insurance policies which STS deems reasonable and adequate. Upon request, STS shall furnish certificates of insuran to the Client evidencing the risks insured against, and the limits ofliability thereunder. In the event the Client requires specific inclusions of coverage in addition to that obtainedby STS, or increased limits of liability in STS's liability policies, the cost of such inclusions or increased limits shall be borne by the Client. The Client agrees to limit the liability of STS to the limits of STS's insurance. STS shall notbe responsible for claims, damages, losses and expenses arising out of or resulting from acts and/or omissions of the Client, its employees, agents, staff, consultants, contractors or subcontractors employed by it or by any other entity. SECTION 10: MEDIATION -ARB TRAMON OF DISPUTES a. All claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to the interpretation, application or enforcement of this Agreement or any breach thereof, including, but not limited to, disputes arising out of alleged design defects, breaches of contract, errors, omissions, or acts of professional negligence, or the arbitrability of such disputes, shall be decided by a final and binding arbitration decision by the mediator - arbitrator in accordance with the procedures set forth in the remaining paragraphs of this section. This mediation- arbitration procedure shall not apply to disputes arising out of death or bodily injury. b. For the purposes of this section; PROJECT means the total construction to be built by the Client, including, but not limited to, all tests, professional services, and labor necessaryto produce the construction andall materials and equipment incorporated or to be incorporated in such construction; DISPUTE means any claim, controversy, or other matter in questionbetween the Client and STS arising out of or relating to thisAgreement for the provision of professional services or breach thereof; and PARTY means the Client or STS, or their respective insurers or sureties. e parties agree that the authority of the mediator- arbitrator shall extend to disputes arising on or after the Wtate of STS's contract concerning the Project. Any party shall request, in writing, mediation - arbitration of any dispute within seven (7) calendar days of the date that it knew or should reasonably have known of the dispute. In no event shall the demand for mediation- arbitration be made more than six (6) years from the date of substantial completion of STS's participation in the Project. d. In the event that any party shall request mediation - arbitration of any dispute as set forth in this section, the Client and STS shall select by mutual agreement a neutral mediator - arbitrator within seven (7) calendar days of the date of receipt by the other party of the written request for mediation - arbitration. In the event of failure to reach such agreement, or in any instance when the selected mediator - arbitrator is unable or unwilling to serve and a replacement cannot be agreed upon by the Client and STS, such successor mediator - arbitrator shall be chosen as specified in the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. e. The mediator - arbitrator shall have authority to determine all procedural questions, including, but not limited to, any questions as to procedural arbitrability. Both parties specifically acknowledge that, in accordance with the first paragraph of this section above, the mediator - arbitrator in his/her own discretion, or on the application of any party, may mediate - arbitrate any claim which process may, but does not necessarily, include meeting individually with any party while excluding the other pasty or parties as determined with the discretion of the mediator - arbitrator. f. All communications with the mediator - arbitrator, including but not limited to, any demand for mediation - arbitration, shall be by certified mail to him/her and copies by certified mail to all other parties involved in said dispute. All mediation - arbitration shall be held at a location selected by mutual agreement between the Client and STS. In the event of failure to reach such an agreement, the location shall be selected by the mediator - arbitrator. The fee of the mediator - arbitrator and the costs of transcription and such other costs incurredby the ediator- arbitrator shall be apportioned equally between the parties. The parties mutually agree that the Construction IndustryArbitration Rules of the AmericanArbitrationAssociation, where not inconsistentwith this Agreement, shall be applicable to any mediation - arbitration required by this Agreement. SECTION 11: TER3 MATION a. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon at least seven (7) 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. Such termination shall not be effective if that substantial failure has been remedied before expiration of the period specified in the written nonce. The only exceptions to this seven -day written notice condition are STS's rights to terminate this Agreement as set forth in Section 2 ofthe Agreement or to terminate this Agreement immediately if conditions making it more difficult than anticipated to drill at the specified locations are encountered which are not made known to STS prior to its arrival at the Project site. b. In addition, STS may terminate this Agreement if the Client suspends STS's services for more than sixty (60) consecutive days through no fault of STS. c. If this Agreement is terminated, STS shall be paid for services performed prior to the termination date set forth in the notice plus termination expenses. Termination expenses shall include personnel and equipment rescheduling and re- assignment a justments and all other related costs incurred directly attributable to termination. SECTION 18: S a. In the event that any provision herein shall be deemed invalid or unenforceable, the other provisions hereof sha11 remain in full force and effect, and binding upon the parties hereto. SECTION 13: SECTION HEADINGS a. The heading or title of a section is provided for convenience and information and shall not serve to alter or affect the provisions included herein. SECTION 14: SURVIVAL a. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating responsibility or ha:bilitybetween the Client and STS shall survive the completion of services and the termination of this Agreement. SECTION 1S: ASSIGNS a. Neither the Client nor STS may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer its duties, responsibilities or interests in this Agreement without the written consent of the other pasty. SECTION IS: CHOICE OF LAW a. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the state in which this Agreement will be performed. 11188 Proposal - Fk-m � v R C C r R F�e Schedules V i l 1 - c C C i Engineering Services i Charges for technical personnel will be made for Technical Classifications time spent in the field, in consultation, in preparation of reports and invoices, in Senior Principa Per Hour $ 140.00 administrating contracts and project coordination, P rin c ipal Per Hour $ 105.00 and in traveling. Associate Per Hour $ 95.00 'Overtime will be charged after 8 hours per day; Senior Consultant Per Hour $ 86.00 before 7:00 am and after 6:00 pm Monday i through Friday; or all day Saturday — technical Con sultan t Per Hour $ 76.00 i rate x 1.25. Doubletime will be charged on Technical Project S taff Per Hour $ 64.00 Sundays or Holidays -- technical rate x 2. Four hour minimum per day. Technical Support Staff' Per Hour $ 40.00 Expert Witness Testimony will be billed at the Senior Technician' Per Hour $ 42.00 rates shown here x 1.5. Technician' Per Hour $ 38.00 ] Laboratory test programs will be identified in our J proposal and billed out on a lump sum basis. Additional laboratory work will be billed on the Technical Support Services following hourly basis plus expenses, expendables and equipment. Subsurface Exploration The cost of equipment to complete the project Drill Rig Mobilization (L ocal within 30 miles) Per Trip $ 350.00 I will be identified in our proposal. (Out -of -Town) Per Mile One Way $ 10.00 Drill rig rates include two (2) persons. Additional A T er r ai n R ig Per Hour $ 180.00 persons will be charged according to the Drill Rig - Class I Per Hour $ 170.00 technical classifications. Drill Rig -Class II Per Hour $ 160.00 Laboratory Services Manager Per Hour $ 68.00 Sup erviso r Per Hour $ 60.00 Technician Per Hour $ 42.00 Expenses and Expendables All Expenses to Complete the Project Cost + 2 0% Mileage Per Mile $ 0.44 All Expendables to Complete the Project Cost + 20% Minneapolis 12/90 STS Consultants, Ltd. Consulting Engineers CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date -1 x!91 Agenda Rem Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 i DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIRE T R OF PKMIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: �. No comments to supplement this report attached Comments below /attached / SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Evergreen Land Services has negotiated purchase agreements with the property owners at 3908 69th Avenue North and 6401 Indiana Avenue North. These agreements are based on appraised values of: William and Donna Mathias, 3908 69th Avenue - $84,000 and Phil and Patty Wagenbach, 6901 Indiana Avenue - $63,000. These offers are acceptable to the property owners, and they have signed the agreements. Closings have not yet been scheduled on these properties. The City Attorney is working with Evergreen and Public Works staff to review and finalize all details. Previous Council Action The Council on May 7, 1990 approved a resolution which provided for the negotiated purchase of real property for project 1990 -10. This resolution authorized the City Manager to negotiate with the owners of the properties to be acquired for this project, and directed him to offer to the owners the amount determined by appraisal and review appraisal. Such purchase agreements are subject to approval and ratification by the City Council. City Council Recommendation As all parties agree to the sale of the properties for their appraised value, a resolution is provided that approves and ratifies the purchase agreements. With these agreements, the City has reached agreements with 21 of the 23 residential property owners. • I I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 69TH AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -66 adopted on March 26, 1990, the City Council ordered the reconstruction of 69th Avenue between Noble Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, Improvement No. 1990 -10; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -84 adopted on April 23, 1990, the City Council approved a right -of -way plan depicting properties to be acquired for the project; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 90 -95 adopted on May 7, 1990, the City Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate the purchase of these properties, and directed the City Manager to offer to the property owners the amount determined by appraisal and review appraisal; and WHEREAS, the owners of the property at 3908 69th Avenue have accepted the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and have executed a purchase agreement to that effect; and WHEREAS, the owner of the property at 6901 Indiana Avenue has accepted the City Manager's offer of the appraised value, and has executed a purchase agreement to that effect; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The terms of the purchase agreements are hereby approved. 2. The City Manager is directed to proceed with the purchase of the properties at 3908 69th Avenue North and 6901 Indiana Avenue North. 3. The City Manager and Mayor are authorized to execute the purchase agreements. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3/25/91 Agenda Item Number / D REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS,,69TH AVENUE WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION, CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: SY KNAPP, DIBLeCTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached Y } On May 7, 1990 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90 -95, authorizing the purchase of�properties as needed to provide right -of -way for the proposed 69th Avenue improvement project, by negotiated purchase. Our goal was for the City to acquire and take possession of all properties (23 homes and 2 commercial properties) by July 1, 1991 so that there is adequate time to remove all buildings in 1991, thereby allowing roadway construction to begin in early spring of 1992. With the approval of another resolution for the purchase of 2 additional houses, the City will have entered into purchase agreements with 21 of the 23 homeowners. At this time we expect to reach agreement with the other two owners within the next month or so. All owners have been advised frequently that the City's goal is to have possession by July 1, and no one has expressed any objections to that. However, our City Attorney recommends (see attached letter) that, even though purchase agreements are signed, condemnation proceedings should be formally initiated prior to April 1 covering all 10 properties for which the actual "closing" has not been completed by that date. This will ensure the City's ability to take possession of those properties by July 1. City staff agrees with that recommendation, noting that Evergreen Land Services will again contact all property owners, in advance, to explain the reason for the City's action, to assure them that we wish to complete the acquisition through negotiation, and to advise them that the condemnation process will only be pursued as a last resort.. Note Regarding the acquisition of the commercial properties, (i.e. - the "Tires Plus" building and the "Orbit TV /Saba Flowers" building) the City's appraisers should complete their appraisals within 2 weeks, thereby allowing us to submit an • offer to the owners in April. While this will not allow completion of acquisition • by July 1, there is no need to meet that date, since we do not expect that either of those buildings will be moved for re -use. Accordingly, we should have no problem dealing with a later possession date on these properties. If condemnation becomes necessary, a separate resolution will be submitted at a later date. City Council Action Required A resolution is provided for consideration by the City Council. r � • HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED CORRINE A. HEINE 470Pillshury Center, Minneapolis,M1tinnesota55402 Attomey at Law Telephone (612) 337 -9300 Facsimile (612) 337 -9310 Direct Dial (612) 337 -9217 March 11, 1991 Ms. Diane Spector City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: 69th Avenue Project Our File No. BR291 -61 Dear Diane: Enclosed is a resolution authorizing condemnation proceedings by quick -take and approving the appraised values of the properties to be taken. Please review the appraised values to make certain they are accurate, and put the resolution on the next council agenda. You will note that the resolution includes several properties for which the City has signed purchase agreements. In order to meet the July 1, 1991 deadline for acquiring the properties, the petition must be filed and a quick -take notice must be served by March 31, 1991. Therefore, I have included all purchases that will not close before March 31, 1991, to ensure that the City acquires title by its deadline. (Note: The Hahn closing has been re scheduled to mid - April.) To avoid any confusion with the property owners who have signed purchase agreements, the city may want Matt Storm to explain to each owner that the condemnation action will be filed as a formality but that the sale will proceed as scheduled. We will file the condemnation petition by March 31, 1991. A draft petition is enclosed for your review. The petition includes those persons whose names appear of record as having an interest in the property. If you are aware of any persons who have unrecorded interests in the property, such as tenants, Ms. Diane Spector March 11, 1991 Page 2 please let me know. In addition, let me know what utility companies have facilities located on those properties. Sincerely, Corrine A. Heine CAH /amm Enclosure cc: Matt Storm 110 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS, 69TH AVENUE WIDENING AND RECONSTRUCTION, CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1990 -10 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has undertaken City Project No. 1990 -10, which involves reconstruction and widening of 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway and the construction of a public trailway adjacent to the reconstructed street; and WHEREAS, in order to construct the improvements contemplated by Project No. 1990 -10, the City requires permanent use and occupation of certain privately owned properties located adjacent to the existing 69th Avenue right of way; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds in necessary, proper and expedient in the interests of the public health, convenience and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center for the City to acquire fee simple title to the affected properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the construction schedule for Project No. 1990 -10 makes it necessary to acquire title to and possession of the affected properties prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court; and WHEREAS, the use of Minn. Stat. Sec. 117.042 (1990), the so- called "Quick- Take" statute, will enable the City to timely acquire the required lands; and WHEREAS the City as ordered and received appraisal reports setting y PP P g forth the damages that will result due to the acquisition of the affected properties; and WHEREAS, the appraisal reports were prepared by a professional real estate appraiser, properly certified, who possesses the appropriate appraisal credentials; and WHEREAS, the appraisal reports have been reviewed by an independent review appraiser, who states that the appraisal reports are in proper form and have been prepared in conformance with the professional appraisal standards that pertain in the Twin Cities metropolitan area; and WHEREAS the " Quick -Take statute requires the City Council to pass upon said appraisal reports for the purpose of adopting them as the City's approved appraisals of value for Quick -Take purposes; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brookl yn Center , Minnesota: RESOLUTION NO. 1. That the City Attorney is hereby authorized to commence condemnation proceedings for City Project No. 1990 -10 in accordance with Minn. Stat. Sec. 117.042 to acquire fee simple title to the following described properties: Parcel 1 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -34 -0008 Address: 4208 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 8, Block 1, Lane's Brooklyn Center Addition Appraisal: $67,000.00 Parcel 2 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -34 -0006 Address: 6901 Indiana Avenue Legal: Lot 6, Block 1, Lane's Brooklyn Center Addition Appraisal: $63,000.00 Parcel 3 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -34 -0084 Address: 4014 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 3, Block 1, Hahn First Addition Appraisal: $103,000.00 Parcel 4 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -34 -0066 Address: 3908 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 17, Block 1, Palmer Lake Terrace 4th Addition Appraisal: $84,000.00 Parcel 5 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -43 -0076 Address: 3720 - 69th Avenue Legal: Westerly 25 feet of Lot 15, and Lot 16, Block 4 in Palmer Lake Terrace Appraisal: $88,000.00 Parcel 6 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -43 -0073 Address: 3618 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 12, Block 4 in Palmer Lake Terrace Appraisal: $76,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. Parcel 7 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -43 -0072 Address: 3612 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 11, Block 4, in Palmer Lake Terrace Appraisal: $74,000.00 Parcel 8 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -43 -0107 Address: 3606 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 10, Block 3, Palmer Lake Terrace 3rd Addition Appraisal: $84,000.00 Parcel 9 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -43 -0104 Address: 3506 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 7, Block 3, Palmer Lake Terrace 3rd Addition Appraisal: $80,000.00 Parcel 10 P.I.D.: 27- 119 -21 -43 - 0103 Address: 3500 - 69th Avenue Legal: Lot 6, Block 3, Palmer Lake Terrace 3rd Addition Appraisal: $75,000.00 2. That the above listed appraisal amounts are approved as to each of the respective parcels listed above. 3. That the City Director of Finance is authorized to draw a check in the amount of $794,000.00, payable to the District Court Administrator, to be deposited with the court. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3 -25 -91 Agenda hem Number ZZR REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) FIRE PUMPER/WATER TOWER AND TRANSFERRING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: Signature - title MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Bids were taken on Monday, March 11, 1991, for a Pumper/Water Tower to replace a 1971 American LaFrance. An appropriation was approved in the 1991 Fire Department Mobile Equipment budget for this equipment. The 1991 appropriation was $255,000. The low bid which includes a $20,000 trade -in is $269,748 from General Safety Equipment Company of • North Branch. 1 The Fire Chief is requesting that we increase the tire size and also the engine size (see attached memo) . These additions would add $2,041 to the bid price. He is also recommending that we delete the 100% performance bond for a savings of $1,200. This would put the piece of fire apparatus $15,589 over budget. I am recommending we transfer this amount out of the contingency fund to cover the overage. The Fire Chief has retained the City's right to sell the American LaFrance up until the delivery of the new pumper /water tower. He believes it can be sold for $25,000 to $30,000 on the used apparatus market if the City advertises and sells it ourselves. If we can sell it for more than the $20,000, it will reduce our contingency funding needs. i 0 TO: JERRY SPLINTER CITY MANAGER FROM: RON BOMAN FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: PUMPER/WATER TOWER BIDS DATE: MARCH 18, 1991 On Monday March 11, 1991 we opened bids for our replacement Fire Apparatus, we received bids from three (3) builders of fire apparatus, American LaFrance, Emergency One and General Safety. The low bid is General Safety of North Branch Minnesota. There are a number of reasons the apparatus came in over budget, one is there has been increases in the both the chassis of 5% from the manufacturer Sparten, and also an increase of 7% in the Snorkel or water tower unit. Most of these increases come from new fire department standards that are now required by NFPA the National Fire Protection Association this agency sets standards for fire departments and equipment manufactures. 1 am recommending we make the 2 additionals to the specified equipment, first the increased tire size for the front axle to the 315/80R tires to match the 16,000 pound axle. The 120013/16 ply I requested on the bid were for a 14,000 pound front axle and I had to increase the axle size but failed to increase the tire size at the time we changed the axle size. The additional cost is $788.00 Secondly, I am recommending we go to the 12.7 liter 365 HP Detroit Diesel engine rather than the 11.1 liter 350 HP engine in the original bid. I had requested all bidders give us the option to increase the engine size. The reason 1 am requesting we go to the increased engine size is for two reasons: one because of the new federal emmission standards, and the 12.7 liter is equal in power to the old 6V92TA engine which we specified. The addition cost of the 12.7 liter 365 HP is $1,253.00. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) FIRE PUMPER /WATER TOWER AND TRANSFERRING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of one (1) fire pumper /water tower; and WHEREAS, $255,000 was originally appropriated for the purchase of the fire pumper /water tower; and WHEREAS, it is approved that two additions be made to the equipment originally specified, said additions to cost an additional $2,041.00; and WHEREAS, the deletion of the 100% performance bond is hereby approved; and WHEREAS, three bids were received as follows: Company Bid General Safety Equipment Co. $269,748.00 MN Conway Fire and Safety $282,423.00 American LaFrance $292,991.00 WHEREAS, the total cost of the fire pumper /water tower is $15,589 over the approved appropriation; and WHEREAS, the transfer of $15,589 from the contingency fund to the Fire Department budget is hereby approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of one (1) fire pumper /water tower from General Safety Equipment Company in the amount of $269,748 is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 - 3-25-91 Agenda Item Number___�� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TEN (10) MOBILE RADIOS AND 16 PAGERS DEPT. APPROVAL: -P. Pano -" Depuly City Clerk Signature - le MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: i No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached The fire department has the authority to purchase items using the Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium contracts. The Consortium received bids for mobile radios and pagers and awarded the contract ( #M2456) to Motorola, Inc. The total cost of the items requested is less than the approved appropriation. I recommend approval of the attached resolution. • i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TEN (10) MOBILE RADIOS AND SIXTEEN (16) PAGERS WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of ten (10) mobile radios and sixteen (16) pagers; and WHEREAS, bids were taken by the State of Minnesota Fire Consortium and awarded under Contract #M2456; and WHEREAS, the bid was awarded to Motorola, Inc. WHEREAS, $21,100 was originally appropriated for the purchase of the ten (10) mobile radios and sixteen (16) pagers; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of ten (10) mobile radios at a total cost of $13,160 and sixteen (16) pagers at a total cost of $7,776 from Motorola, Inc. is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3 -25 -91 Agenda hem Number //R REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 800 FEET OF FIVE INCH FIRE HOSE ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: P . QIX Depuly Cily Clerk Signature - ti MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached _) The Fire Department is able to purchase items through the Minnesota Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium. The Consortium received bids for Angus High Combat Hose and awarded the contract to Frontline Eqipment. I recommend approval of.the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 800 FEET OF FIVE INCH FIRE HOSE WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 Fire Department Budget for 800 feet of five inch hose; and WHEREAS, the MN Fire Agencies Purchasing Consortium received bids for fire hose; and WHEREAS, the bid was awarded to Frontline Equipment under Contract #0901 -2; and WHEREAS, the total cost of 800 feet of five inch Angus High Combat hose is $4,200. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of 800 feet of five inch Angus High Combat hose from Frontline Equipment is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3-25 -91 Agenda hem Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 800 FEET OF 1 3/4" FIRE HOSE ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: P . — Depuly Cijy Clerk Signature - 67e MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: 0aza s No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached ************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached An appropriation was approved in the 1991 Fire Department budget for 800 feet of 1 3/4 inch fire hose. In the past the Fire Department has purchased several different brands of fire hose and has found they do not wear well. The Fire Chief has requested he be allowed to purchase a new hose which is supposed to last longer. This hose is Angus High Combat Hose and is only supplied by one vendor (Frontline Equipment of Monticello, Minnesota). Frontline has submitted a quote of $3,600 for this hose. I recommend approval of the attached resolution. • as Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 800 FEET OF 1 314 INCH ANGUS HIGH COMBAT HOSE WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 Fire Department Budget for the purchase of 800 feet of 1 3/4 inch hose; and WHEREAS, there is only one vendor that supplies 1 3/4 inch Angus High Combat hose; and WHEREAS, the cost of 800 feet of 1 3/4 inch Angus High Combat hose from Frontline Equipment is $3,600. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of 800 feet of 1 3/4 inch Angus High Combat hose from Frontline Equipment in the amount of $3,600, is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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 3 -25 -91 Agenda hem Numbe REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ITEM DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) DIVER DRY SUITS ********************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** DEPT. APPROVAL: -P P - Depujy Cijy Clerk Signature - thlb 4 MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) An appropriation was approved in the 1991 Fire Department budget for the purchase of three diver dry suits. Two quotes were received. I recommend approval of the attached resolution. • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) DIVER DRY SUITS WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1991 budget for the purchase of three (3) diver dry suits; and WHEREAS, two quotations were received as follows: Company Ouote Smith Diving $5,880.00 Dive Rescue $6,911.50 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of three (3) diver dry suits from Smith Diving, in the amount of $5,880 is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. tr Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS (BROOKDALE ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PROJECT); AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF VARIOUS NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Authorization and Recitals 1.01. General Authority By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 - 469.165, as amended (the "Act "), the City is authorized to sell revenue bonds or obligations and to enter into revenue agreements to finance projects as defined therein, and to refund bonds issued for such purposes. 1.02. Outstanding Bonds The City, pursuant to the Act, issued its Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Three Limited Partnership Project), Series 1985 in the principal amount of $8,900,000 (the "Prior Bonds "), for the purpose of financing the acquisition of land and the construction of an approximately 111,000 square foot commercial office building (the "Project ") on behalf of Brookdale Three Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership. Acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project has been completed but, due primarily to slower than anticipated rentals in the commercial real estate market, the Prior Bonds are in default and have been declared due and payable by the trustee for the holders of the Prior Bonds (the "Prior Bonds Trustee "). 1.03. Proposed Refunding Bonds Pursuant to a settlement negotiated by Brookdale Three Limited Partnership with the Prior Bonds Trustee, Brookdale Associates Limited Partnership (the successor to Brookdale Three Limited Partnership, hereafter referred to as the 'Borrower ") has proposed that the City, acting under and pursuant to the Act, issue and sell its Commercial Development Refunding Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Associates Limited Partnership Project), Series 1991, in the principal amount of $5,100,000 (the 'Bonds "), for the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds. Pursuant to the proposal, the proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Borrower to refund the Prior Bonds, and the Borrower will agree to make loan repayments sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. The Borrower will also grant a mortgage lien on the Project to the Trustee designated for the Bonds. Repayment of the -2- Borrower's loan obligation, and the Bonds, would be guaranteed by Northwestern National Life Insurance Company. 1.04. Documentation Drafts of the following documents relating to the Project and the Bonds have been prepared and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be filed in the office of the City Clerk: (a) a Mortgage Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement "), to be dated as of March 1,1991 ro proposed to be entered into b the i an d the Borrower; City p P Y Y (b) an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture "), to be dated as of March 1, 1991, proposed to be entered into by the City and the American National Bank and Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee "), relating to the Bonds; (c) a Guaranty Agreement (the "Guaranty "), to be dated as of March 1, 1991, proposed to be executed by Northwestern National Life Insurance Company ( "NWNL") in favor the Trustee; (d) an Assignment of Rents and Leases (the "Assignment "), to be dated as of March 1, 1991, proposed to be executed by the Borrower in favor of the Trustee; (e) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement ", to b&dated as of March 1,1991, proposed to be executed by the Borrower, NWNL, the City and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated (the "Purchaser "); (f) a Remarketing Agreement (the "Remarketing Agreement "), to be dated on or about March 1, 1991, proposed to be executed by the Borrower, NWNL, the Trustee and Juran & Moody, Inc., St. Paul, Minnesota as remarketing agent. Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the refinancing of the Project, the authorization of the Bonds in the principal amount of $5,100,000, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and of all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase -3- Agreement and the Bonds valid and binding special obligations in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (b) to assure the continued operation of the Project for the benefit of the residents and tax base of the City, it is desirable that the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $5,100,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, under the provisions of which the City assigns to the Trustee under the Indenture its interests in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement, and the mortgage lien granted to the City by the Borrower pursuant to the Loan Agreement, as security for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds; (c) the loan repayments contained in the Loan Agreement are fixed, and are required to be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of principal of and interest on the Bonds when due; and the Loan Agreement also provides that the Borrower is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement; (d) the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture will not conflict with, or constitute on the part of the City a breach of or a default under, any existing agreement, indenture, mortgage, lease or other instrument to which the City is subject or is a party or by which it is bound; (e) no litigation is pending or, to the best knowledge of the members of this Council, threatened against the City questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the right of any officer of the City to hold his or her office, or in any manner questioning the right and power of the City to execute and deliver the Bonds, or otherwise questioning the validity of the Bonds or the execution, delivery or validity of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement or the Indenture or questioning the appropriation of revenues to payment of the Bonds as provided therein or the right of the City to loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower to refund the Prior Bonds; and (f) all acts and things required under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture the valid and binding special -4- obligations of the City in accordance with their terms will have been done upon adoption of this Resolution and execution of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture. Section 3. Approval of Documents The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Indenture referred to in Section 1.04 are approved, subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the officers of the City executing the same and legal counsel to the City, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by such execution. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute said documents on behalf of the City. Copies of all of the documents shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein. The Mayor and City Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments and closing certificates as may be required to give effect to the transactions herein contemplated. Section 4. The Bonds; Terms Sale and Execution 4.01. Authorization The City hereby authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $5,100,000, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture and this resolution, said Bonds to mature on December 1, 2007 and to bear interest at an initial rate of 6.75% per annum, subject to adjustment as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture. The Bonds shall be sold to the Purchaser at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of dosing in accordance with the terms of the Bond Purchase Agreement. 4.02. Execution The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds as prescribed herein and in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this resolution, the other documents required in the Indenture and such other certificates, documents and instruments as may be appropriate to effect the transactions herein contemplated. The Trustee is hereby appointed authenticating agent for the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1. Section 5. Authentication of Proceedings The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to furnish to the Underwriter and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officer's custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, -5- shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Section 6. Limitations of the City's Obligations Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement or the Indenture, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, and shall not be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and no holder of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City other than those rights and interests of the City under the Loan Agreement which have been pledged to the payment thereof, and the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than those rights and interests of the City under the Loan Agreement which have been pledged to the payment thereof. The agreement of the City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in this resolution or the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement or the Indenture shall be subject at all times to the availability of the revenues furnished by the Borrower or others sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any personal or pecuniary liability thereon. Passed this 25th day of March, 1991. Approved: Mayor Attest: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: -6- and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -7- A CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 3 �/ Agenda Item Number REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Approving the Sale of Tax Forfeited Parcels through Public Auction DEPT. APPROVAL: City Assessor Signs ure - itle MANAGERIS REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached ) Attached is a map showing six vacant townhouse lots and one outlot in the Moorwood Townhouse development. The outlot could potentially be subdivided to four townhouse lots. The City has three options relating to the disposition of Tax Forfeiture properties: 1) Approve for public auction. 2) Approve for auction to adjacent owners. (In order for this option, the City must declare the parcels unbuildable.) 3) Request conveyance to the City for public use. After a staff review and discussion, action one, Approve for Public Auction is advised. While the six lots are on the fringe of the flood plain we cannot determine that they are, in fact, unbuildable. As these parcels are located within the existing development, there is no apparent public use for which we should acquire. Therefore, I recommend the Council pass the attached resolution. i I c„ c„ 5909 A {°s4) i) M PART OF SSW ° LOT 6 N ° sg5 29 a ( 3) {28) 4 S89'46 121.05 " — 7 5843 8�1g7) '4 1) 40 39)( tfR� BA 121.05 , SW2t'46'E SW i ' ® (45) (13) 1 N 2 i l3fY � See•42'30•E � Ln (51) 87 ® (46) 2 1- 121.05 I i (52) 2 ® (47) 3 Si 42 5831 (53) 3 g ( 4 N 3 N `= (49) 5 tr (14) i z i (54) 4 (50) 6 ® 121.05 (55) 5 58ZS i (56) 6 II N °� 4 i T* 67 (w (15) I to OUMOT C n 121.05 i let (44) _ in 5819 5815 Z Z� 5 g 112 0 CD D ® ( i6) �: f ~ ¢ ; Q 121.05 ` i w �^ O Z_ f O O s, N 6 n (17) NJ Of LLI d v v 0 Q 124.05 S897 i h N T ^' ' W 12 5805 (27) tzt.a5 5803 (26) ' 5891 - l 707.61 P 137. T4 'PEST �, � � I 424.44 (CO RD NO 10) 111.6 S70 g t . (10) , 41 •� c x.3.29' e.r fwn. anpw., rd oco.rwaKr wry /iv Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SALE OF SEVEN PARCELS OF LAND -------------------------------------------------- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has received from the County of Hennepin, a list of lands in Brooklyn Center which became the property of the State of Minnesota, for nonpayment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota, as nonconservation land and the sale thereof has heretofore been authorized by said Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, acting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, that said classification lists by said Board of County Commissioners of the land described in said list as nonconservation land be and the same is hereby approved with respect,to the following parcels: Property Identification No. Description 03- 118 -21 -23 -0044 Outlot C Moorwood Townhouses 03- 118 -21 -23 -0051 Lot 1, Block 2 Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition 03- 118 -21 -23 -0052 Lot 2, Block 2 Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition 03- 118 -21 -23 -0053 Lot 3, Block 2 Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition 03- 118 -21 -23 -0054 Lot 4, Block 2 Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition 03- 118 -21 -23 -0055 Lot 5, Block 2 Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition 03- 118 -21 -23 -0056 Lot 6, Block 2 Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition and that the sale of said parcels of land be and the same is hereby approved. Date Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 25, 1991 BULK VENDOR Brooklyn Center Lions P.O. Box 29092 2 Vendall Bulk Vending Company 1820 East 38th Street Sanitarian FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd. Berean Evangelical Free Church 6625 Humboldt Avenue N. Bridgeman's Restaurant 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Avenue N. Brooklyn Center American Legion 4307 70th Avenue N. Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Avenue N. Brooks Food Market #21 6804 Humboldt Avenue N. Children's World Learning Center 6020 Earle Brown Drive Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center Denny's Restaurant #1284 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Food Express 1131 Brookdale Center Garden City School 3501 65th Avenue N. Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Hardee's 1601 Freeway Blvd. Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Avenue N. 0 Holiday Inn 2200 Freeway Blvd. J. C. Penney 1265 Brookdale Center Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Blvd. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive LaCasita Mexican Restaurant 2101 Freeway Blvd. Leann Chin, Inc. 6050 Shingle Crk. Pky. Leann Chin, Inc. 6800 Shingle Crk. Pky. Little Brooklyn 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. Minnesota Vikings Food Service 5200 West 74th Street U.S. West 5910 Shingle Crk. Pky. New Horizon Day Care Center 6625 Humboldt Avenue N. Northwest Residence 4408 69th Avenue N. Num Num Foods, Inc. Brookdale Snack Bar Nutrition World 1271 Brookdale Center Perkins Family Restaurants 5915 John Martin Drive Price Candy Company 4444 North Belleview Carson Pirie Scott 1200 Brookdale Center Z/ Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Brooklyn Center Lions 6500 Humboldt Avenue N. Feneis Foods, Inc. 13451 Arrowood Lane /� 1 Iten Chevrolet 1694 & Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Blaine Heating, AC & Electric 13562 Central Avenue NE Brady Mechanical Services, Inc. 3075 -C Spruce Street Fred Vogt & Co., Inc. 3260 Gorham Avenue J. K. Heating Company 1286 Hudson Road LBP Mechanical, Inc. 315 Royalston Avenue N. Lamb Mechanical 1433 Utica Avenue S. Noel's Heating & A /C, Inc. 4920 Zachary Lane Owens Services Corporation 930 East 80th Street P & H Services Company, Inc. 208 73rd Avenue N. Pride Mechanical, Inc. 3025 NE Randolph Street Royalton Heating & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Avenue N. Standard Heating & AC Co. 410 West Lake Street Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Avenue N. Building Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES D.L Service Co. 2516 83rd Avenue N. � � �� • Lowell's Automotive 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES Consumer Vending 2828 Lyndale Avenue S. �yJ� Target 6701 Parkway Circle Sanitarian POOL AND BILLIARDS Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Deputy C irk RENTAL DWELLINGS Initial: Brighton II Ltd Partnership Timber Ridge Apartments Renewal: Lu Ann Falenczykowski 6000 Abbott Avenue N. James and Bobbie Simons 6109,11,13 Beard Avenue N. Norman Chazin 6037 Brooklyn Blvd. Curtis H. and Audrey L. Cady 6915 Brooklyn Blvd. Henry W. Norton 5240 Drew Avenue N. Gar -Nan Management Company 6807,13,19 Humboldt Avenue N. Roland Scherber 4714 Lakeview Avenue N. Richard D. Bergstrom 5400 Russell Avenue N. Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive North Gregory M. Ray 3713 Urban Avenue N. Raymond and Betty Anderson 7113 Willow Lane Robert and Patricia Bobleter 4807 Wingard Place Donald Kutz 6837 York Place M.B.L. Investment Company 3613 47th Avenue N. Donald E. Sobania 3701 47th Avenue N. Donald Wilson and Michael Boyle 3713 47th Avenue N. Catherine P. Shefeluk 3018 51st Avenue N. Curtis H. Cady 1312 72nd Avenue N. Ruth Kalanquin 5348 70th Circle H. E. Homes, Inc. 1323 67th Lane J. J. Barnett 2930 68th Lane ! J J. J. Barnett 2934 68th Lane Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER Lawrence Signs, Inc. 945 Pierce Butler Rte Building Official SWIMMING POOLS Beach Condominiums 4201 -07 Lakeside Avenue N. Brookside Manor Apartment 1121 -1307 67th Avenue N. Days Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Evergreen Park Manor Apartments 7200 Camden Avenue N. Four Court Apartments 2836 Northway Drive Hiway 100 N. France Racquet Club 4001 Lakebreeze Northbrook Apartments 1302 69th Avenue N. i North Lyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Avenue N. Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: P. Page, D ty Clerk