The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987 03-23 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 23, 1987 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda - All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. *6. Approval.of Minutes - March 9, 1987 - Regular Session 7. Presentations: a. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council b. Charter - Commission - Retiring Member *8. Proclamation Declaring May 27, 1987 as Women Entrepreneurs: Partners with Government and Industry Day 9. Resolutions: a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1986 -21, Earle Brown Farm Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase III, Streetscape Lighting, Contract 1986 -R *b. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1987 -06, Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program, Contract 1987 -D c. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1987 -03, Brookdale 16" Water Main Improvement, Lions Park to County Road 10, Contract 1987 -E *d. Approving Proposed Program for Year XIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Funds and Authorizing Its Submittal *e. Authorizing the Transfer of Community Development Block Grant Funds to Hennepin County for Three (3) Housing and Redevelopment Grants CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 23, 1987 *f. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for One (1) Heavy Duty Industrial Tractor and Loader - Appropriation approved in the 1987 Parks Maintenance Budget. *g. Accepting Quote for the Purchase of Steel Mesh Fencing at Northport p Park - Appropriation approved in the 1987 Parks Maintenance Budget. h. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with Funk Animal Hospital for Care of Impounded Animals 10. Ordinances: (7:30 p.m.) a. Amending Chapter 35 g p Regarding the Planning Commission -This item was first read on February 3 1987 Y , published in the City's official newspaper on March 5, 1987 and is offered this evening for a second reading. Staff recommends denial. b. Amending Chapter 29 of City Ordinances to Bring Existing 1n Terms of Office g of the City Council into Conformance with the Amended City Charter -This item was first read, on February 23, 1987, published in the City's official newspaper on March 5, 1987 and is offered this evening for a second reading. 11. Planning Commission Items: (7:45 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 87001 submitted by Construction 70, Inc. (Learning Tree Day Care Center) requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a day care center immediately south of the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. This application ication w PP as tabled by the Planning Commission on January 15, 1987, and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 12, 1987 meeting. b. Planning Commission Application No. 87002 submitted by Construction 70, Inc. requesting preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land on Earle Brown Drive between the Park Nicollet Medical Clinic and the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission on January 15, 1987, and was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 12, 1987 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 23, 1987 c. Planning Commission Application No. 87005 submitted by Uhde /Nelson, Inc. requesting site and building plan approval to construct a 10,000 sq. ft., 2 story office building, at 7213 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 12, 1987 meeting. 12. Discussion Items: a. Recommendation from the River Ridge Park Comprehensive Plan Ad Hoc Committee - 8:15 p.m. 1. Resolution Approving the Draft Plan of the North Mississippi Regional Park Study /Plan Dated June 12, 1986 Subject to Certain Conditions b. Public Utilities Rate Study C. SF353 -HF373 Ground Water Protection Bill ? -HF360 Local Erosion and Sediment Control Bill 1. Resolution Relating to Two Bills Introduced in the Minnesota Legislature Relating to Erosion and Sediment Control and Ground Water d. Recommendation by Park and Recreation Commission to Televise Their Commission Meetings on Cable Television e. 1987 — 1989 MAMA -49 Master Agreement *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment Z i 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 9, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Ron Batty, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti Page. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Hawes. AMERICAN RED CROSS - Mayor Nyquist recognized Theresa Lang and Leslie Lane, representatives from the Northwest Branch of the American Red Cross. Ms. Lang briefly reviewed the basic programs and services provided by the American Red Cross, and noted that one of the fund raising projects is the Challenge- between - the - Mayors. She noted that for this project area mayors or their representatives have agreed to collect pledges and then swim for these pledges. She stated the Challenge- between -the- Mayors is being held on Wednesday, April 22, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Brooklyn Center Community Center pool. Mayor Nyquist thanked Ms. Lang and Ms. Lane for their presentation regarding the American Red Cross. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the Consent Agenda. The City Manager stated that item 9a2 should be removed from the Consent Agenda and tabled to the March 23, 1987 meeting to allow for further staff review. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1986 -21, Earle Brown Farm Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase III Streetscape Lighting, Contract 1986 -R. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23 1987 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to 3 -9 -87 -1- t approve the minutes of the February 23, 1987 City Council meeting, The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 87 -42 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO_ 1986- 21, EARLE BROWN FARM STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE III STREETSCAPE NODES, CONTRACT 1986 -Q The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -43 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N0. 1986 - 21, EARLE BROWN FARM STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE III STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING, CONTRACT 1986 -S The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -44 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROCEDURES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -45 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY AND ACCEPTING BID FOR SALE OF 1967 INTERNATIONAL FIRE TRUCK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following list of licenses: BULK VENDING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lions 7131 Knox Avenue N. CIGARETTE LICENSE The Gift Shop (Ramada Hotel) 2200 Freeway Boulevard 3 -9 -87 -2- FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Boulevard American Bakeries 4215 69th Avenue North Arby's Brookdale Center Brook Park Baptist Church 4801 63rd Avenue North Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Avenue North Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Avenue N. Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Avenue N. Burger King 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard Canteen Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Boulevard Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Avenue North CEAP 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard Country Club Market 3000 France Avenue North Country Store 3610 63rd Avenue North Cross of Glory Lutheran Church 5929 Brooklyn Boulevard Davanni's 5937 Summit Drive Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Avenue North Evergreen Park Elementary School 7020 Dupont Avenue North 50' Grill 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Avenue North House of Hui's Restaurant 6800 Humboldt Avenue North Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Avenue North Chuck Muer's Restaurant 2101 Freeway Boulevard Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Avenue North Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Avenue North J.C. Penney Brookdale Center Pizza Hut 6000 Shingle Creek Parkway Price Candy Company Brookdale Center Ramada Hotel 2200 Freeway Boulevard T.Wrights 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Wes' Amoco 6044 Brooklyn Boulevard Willow Lane PTA 7020 Perry Avenue North Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Avenue North GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company 4435 68th Avenue North MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Air Comfort, Inc. 3944 Louisiana Circle Comfort Mechanical Inc. 4721 33rd Avenue North Golden Valley Heating & Air Cond. 5182 West Broadway Royalton Heating & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Avenue North NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Avenue S. Best Products Company 5925 Earle Brown Drive . Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard 3 -9 -87 -3- Schmitt Music 3400 Freeway Boulevard D.L. Service 2516 83rd Avenue North Lowell's Automotive 6211 Brooklyn Boulevard PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Avenue S. Best Products Company 5925 Earle Brown Drive Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard Schmitt Music 3400 Freeway Boulevard SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Cragg, Inc. 7150 Madison Avenue West SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE The Gift Shop (Ramada Hotel) 2200 Freeway Boulevard SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Ramada Hotel 2200 Freeway Boulevard Real Estate Equities Brookside Manor Apts. TAXICAB LICENSE Airport Cab 2708 East Lake Street Yellow Taxi Service Corporation 3555 5th Avenue South The motion passed unanimously. PROCLAMATION Mayor Nyquist stated that the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast has been scheduled for April 4, 1987 at the Holiday Inn. Councilmember Lhotka introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: DECLARING A DAY OF SPIRITUAL REDEDICATION IN BROOLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented a Resolution Rejecting All Bids and Ordering Advertisement for New Bids for Improvement Project No. 1987 -02, Water Tower No. 1 Reconditioning, Contract 1987 -B. He noted that water tower No. 1 is located at 69th Avenue and France Avenue North. Councilmember Theis inquired if the error in the low bid was quite substantial or could the City hold the contractor to his bid. The City Manager stated that the error was quite substantial, and that if the City were to hold the contractor to his bid, staff believes the contractor could not provide the quality of work which the City requires. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -46 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR NEW BIDS FOR 3 -9 -87 -4- IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -02, WATER TOWER NO. 1 RECONDITIONING, CONTRACT 1987 -B The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Approving Change Order Relating to the Rehabilitation of the Existing Pedestrian Bridge at the Centerbrook Golf Course (Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Contract 1986 -C). He noted this item was tabled at the February 23, 1987 meeting to allow staff time to provide additional information. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -47 Member Celia. Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER RELATING TO THE REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT THE CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 - 23, PHASE I; CONTRACT 1986 -C) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed with Councilmember Lhotka opposed. The City Manager presented a Resolution Recognizing the Achievement of Clara D. Foell. He noted that Ms. Foell swam 500 miles at the Community Center pool. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -48 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CLARA D. FOELL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion asse d unanimously. sly. The City Manager presented a Resolution Recommending Denial of Planning Commission Application No. 86045 Submitted by Crown Coco, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -49 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DENYING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 86045 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager presented a Resolution Authorizing the Brooklyn Center Volunteer Fire Department to Conduct Fire Drills at 1601 -73rd Avenue North. The City Manager noted that permission has been given by the property owner for this training drill. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -50 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 3 -9 -87 _5_ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE BROOKLYN CENTER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT FIRE DRILLS AT 1601 73RD AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS AMENDMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSIONS' RESOLUTIONS AND BYLAWS The City Manager explained that the Year 2000 Committee Report had recommended reviewing existing advisory commissions' duties and responsibilities, and drafting resolutions which would standardize much of the language regarding the operating structure of the commissions. He noted that one standardized set of bylaws has been established, which allows for uniformity in operations across the commissions. The Personnel Coordinator stated the City Attorney has advised her the ordinance amendment which was given a first reading at the February 23, 1987 meeting regarding Chapter 35 must be revised in three ways. She noted the revised ordinance amendment is before the Council this evening for a first reading, and the original amendment will appear for pp a second readin g at the March 23, 1987 Council meeting. She stated at the March 23, 1987 meeting the Council should defeat this original amendment, and the second reading of the new amendment would then be scheduled for the April 6, 1987 'Council meeting. The City Manager stated the action staff is requesting regarding the other resolutions is for Council to refer the revised resolutions to the advisory commissions for input before final changes are made by the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the preliminary report, and to send the revised resolutions to the advisory commissions for their input and recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Regarding the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. COMPARABLE WORTH The City Manager gave a brief overview of the enabling legislation for comparable worth, the compensation study, the results of the City's appeal process, and the steps which still must be completed before the comparable worth analysis is final. He noted that in the upcoming months staff will be collecting information to develop an equitable pay relationship study. He stated that in June and July of this year it would have to be decided how the City would add the market rate information to the job evaluations. He noted that in July an implementation plan would have to be decided upon. Councilmember Theis inquired if the findings from the appeals process for the Public Works and Police Department would change the regression lines for clerical and other lower scale positions. The City Manager stated that staff would have to consider changes for all positions if major changes were made in the Public Works and Police Department. Councilmember Theis inquired if any salary changes would have to be retroactive. The City Manager stated that the law makes no provisions for salary changes being retroactive, only that the City 3 -9 -87 -6- ' f r must adopt an implementation plan by August 1, 1987. MINNESOTA OLYMPIC FACILITY The City Manager briefly reviewed the materials submitted regarding the possibility of an Olympic Facility located in Blaine. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if this facility has received approval or endorsements from the Olympic Committee. The City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if the City of Blaine or Anoka County has requested any money from the northern cities. The City Manager stated that no requests have been made at this point. Councilmember Theis inquired if this facility would be developed with State funds or metro area funds. The City Manager stated this would be t s rictl State funding. Y g. j RESOLUTION NO. 87 -51 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF LOCATING AN OLYMPIC DEVELOPMENT FACILITY WITHIN ANOKA COUNTY AT THE BLAINE SOCCER COMPLEX The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b g g Y Y member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING MEETING FOR TREND ISSUE AND GOAL STATEMENTS The City Manager briefly reviewed the preliminary report which merges into one document the trends, issues and goals of the Year 2000 Report and the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. He noted the document is in matrix form and sets certain priorities for each of the trends, issues, and goals. The City Manager stated he is requesting the Council to allow staff to work with the Commissions to merge the statements into a more workable document. Councilmember Scott stated that after the Commissions have reviewed this document it is possible some items will be deleted because the item or goal has already been achieved. There was a motion -by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the preliminary copy of the summary statements, and to forward this document on to the advisory commissions for their review and comment. The motion passed unanimously. KALEIDOSCOPE '87 The City Manager noted that Kaleidoscope is scheduled for April 5, 1987 at the Brooklyn Center High School, and there would be three booths for City representation. He noted the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission will be present, the Park and Recreation Commission along with the Park and Recreation Department will have a booth promoting the par three golf course, and a general booth for the Council and the Brooklyn Center Constitution Committee. He stated that Councilmembers should try to set aside that date and a schedule will be made for the booth. OTHER BUSINESS The City Manager stated that at the December 8, 1986 Council meeting the Council had authorized the City Manager to sign a nondisclosure agreement for the LOGIS ULTIMAP system. He noted he had recently been informed the nondisclosure agreement should have been between the City and Hennepin County not LOGIS. He 3 -9 -87 -7- a stated a motion should be made this evening authorizing him to sign a nondisclosure agreement with Hennepin County regarding the ULTIMAP system to clear up this minor technicality. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to authorize ,the City Manager to sign a nondisclosure type document with Hennepin County regarding the ULTIMAP system. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7:55 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 3 -9 -87 -8- INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Municipal Profile is to acquaint City Council members and City Staff with the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council and its activities. The Profile covers three areas, (1) information about the Council, (2) services provided by the Council, and (3) samples of data collected by the Council. The first section, information about the Council, describes the Council organization, its mission, and its membership. The second section, services provided by the Council, describes ro ast and current rams and activities. P programs The last section, samples of data collected by the Council, contains a variety of socio- economic data broken down by suburban planning area as well as by individual municipality. This last section also contains a data profile of your community as well as the most recent, available (1985) Public Assistance Program utilization rates for your community. We hope that the information found in the Municipal Profile will be useful to you and your community. If you have any questions or concerns about this information, please feel free to contact the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council office at 536 -0327. i • TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I . Introduction ..... ............................... i II. Table of Contents ...................... ...... ... ii A. Information About The Council 1) Mission Statement ............................... 1 2) What Is The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council ?... . ........... ...................... 2 3) Organization Chart .............................. 3 4) Executive Board Job Description ................. 4 5) Advisory Commission Job Description ............. 6 6) Council Membership List ......................... 7 7) Council Staff ................................... 8 8) Municipal Contributions to the Council.......... 9 9) 1985 Financial Statement ........................ 10 B. Services Provided By The Council • 1) Benefits to Municipalities ...................... 11 2) Coordination Activities..... 13 3) Community Social Services Act Explanation....... 14 4) Community Social Services Act 1986 Priorities... 18 5) Direct Service Program Descriptions............. 19 6) Housing Resource and Advocacy Project Newsletter 22 (example of a special project) C. Samples of Data Collected By The Council 1) Data Profile .................................... 28 2) NW Hennepin County Population data .............. 28A 3) 1980 Populations By Age ......................... 29 4) Selected Statistics on School District #281..... 30 5) Demographic Characteristics of Older Residents.. 31 6) 1980 Ocuppied Housing Units By Tenure........... 32 7) 1983 - 1985 Average 2- Bedroom Rent Rates........ 32A 8) 1983 - 1985 Outer Ring Suburbs Rent Rates....... 328 9) 1983 - 1985 Inner Ring Suburbs Rent Rates....... 32C 10) 1980 Suburban Poverty Data............ 33 11) 1960 Suburban Poverty Data Chart ................ 34 12) 1980 Poverty Data By Municipality ............... 35 13) 1980 Poverty Data By Municipality Chart......... 35A 14) 1980 Characteristics of Older Residents Below Poverty ......................................... 36 • 15) 1986 Thorson Center Commodity Distribution Program Chart .... ............................... 37 16) 1986 C.R.O.S.S. Commodity Distribution Program Chart............ .......... 37A ii • TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE C. Sameles of Data Collected By The Council 17) 1986 Emergency Assistance Program Use By Municipality 1B) 1986 Emergency Assistance Pr Use B 9 Y 9 Y Number of Households ............................ 38A 19) 1986 Emergency Assistance Program Use By Expenses.......... ...... ........... 38B 20) 1983 - 1985 Northwest Energy Assistance Use By Municipality ..... ............................... 39 P Y 21) 1986 Northwest Energy Assistance Use By Municipality .................................... 40 22) Energy Assistance Program Grant Amounts......... 40A 23) 1984 - 1986 Energy Assistance Funds Allocated... 40B 24) 1984 - 1986 Energy Assistance Crisis Dollars and Conservation Repair Dollars Allocated....... 40C 25) 1984 - 1986 Energy Assistance Municipality Report .......................................... 40D 26) 1981 - 1985 Northwest Public Assistance Cases Graph ............. ............................... 41 • 27) 1981 - 1985 Individual Municipality Public Assistance Cases Graph .......................... 42 28) 1985 Individual Municipality Public Assistance Cases Chart ...... ............................... 43 29) 1985 Suburban AFDC Cases Chart .................. 44 30) 1981 - 1985 AFDC Cases By Municipality.......... 44A 31) 1985 Suburban General Assistance Cases Chart.... 45 32) 1981 - 1985 General Assistance Cases By Municipality .................................... 45A 33) 1985 Suburban Medical Assistance Cases Chart.... 46 34) 1991 - 1985 Medical Assistance Cases By Municipality ..... ............................... 46A 35) 1995 Suburban Food Stamp Cases Chart............ 47 36) 1981 - 1985 Food Stamp Cases By Municipality.... 47A • Enclosed: 1) 1985 Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Annual Report 2) Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Directory of Services iii A. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COUNCIL MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is to make possible effective involvement in Human Services within the communities of Northwest Hennepin County. I. Members of the Council believe that: * Municipalities share in the responsibility of seeing that the human needs of residents are met. * Residents /Consumers should play a critical role in defining their own needs and problems, and in recommending appropriate solutions. * Suburban residents should have access and availability of human services within their own communities. II. The Council provides planning and coordination services to these segments of the community: * Municipalities (city councils, commissions and departments; and to Hennepin County. * Human Service professionals and providers of service. III. The Council engages in the following activities, in this priority manner: * Activities to promote effective links of communication and planning between governmental units, consumers, and providers. * Activities to promote effective coordination and cooperation among those providing human services. * Activities to promote effective identification and provision for needed services to improve the existing service system. * Activities to promote effective community awareness of services. * Activities to promote community awareness of special needs groups. * Administers special programs on a time limited basis, when there is no more appropriate agency to do so, and effective access to residents is at stake. page 1 S WHAT IS THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL? The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council has operated as a human service planning and coordinating agency representing the 14 municipalities of northwest suburban Hennepin County since 1972. Goals of the Council include (1) promoting and initiating the establishment of necessary human services such as the Northwest Mental Health Center, Home Free Shelter for Women and Children, the Energy Assistance Program, the Emergency Services Program, Senior Transportation Programs, and the Community Action Agency of Suburban Hennepin, (2) coordinating services and reducing duplication through the establishment of the Northwest Network, the Mental Health Aftercare Network, the Northwest Child Abuse Network, the Energy Concerns Task Force, and the Emergency Services Providers Network, (3) promoting effective community awareness of services and special needs groups through the publication and dissemination of 75,000 human service directories, 5,000 family violence directories, 1,500 chemical dependency directories, 500 directories of services for the mentally retarded, and 500 directories of services for the physically disabled. The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council operates with a small paid staff, an Executive Board made up of elected officials or administrative staff representing the member communities, and an Advisory Commission consisting of one or two city- appointed citizens from each of the member communities. This structure provides the necessary balance and input from city governments and area citizens. Additional input is invited and encouraged both at public meetings held by the Council throughout the year as well as through less formal avenues of phone calls or written inquiries. Please feel free to contact the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council office with your questions, concerns, or suggestions regarding human service needs in northwest suburban Hennepin County. page 2 NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL ORGANIZATION CHART D D O D O $ STAFF: ` EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PLANNER /EMERGENCY SERVICES COOR. SECRETARY /BOOKKEEPER ENERGY PROGRAM STAFF STUDENTINTERNS VOLUNTEERS ,, Membership by City Council appointment EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBER JOB DESCRIPTION POSITION TITLE: NWHHSC Executive Board Members POSITION PURPOSE: Together with other members of the Board, the Executive Board Member is legally responsible for all activities of the NWHHSC. The Board is solely responsible for determining agency policy, approving annual budgets, and determining the goals of the Council. TERM OF OFFICE: Any director or alternate director shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the appointing party. Directors and alternate directors shall be appointed to serve until their successors are appointed and qualified. (Joint and Cooperative Agreement) VOTING RIGHTS: Each director shall have one vote for each 1,000 (or fraction thereof) people of the party's current population as determined by the Metropolitan Council or by special census. (Joint and Cooperative Agreement) KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREA: Policy administration SPECIFIC DUTIES: * Continues the legal or corporate existence of the . NWHHSC. * Ensures that NWHHSC meets legal requirements for the conduct of agency business and affairs. * Responsible for adopting by -laws and ensuring that NWHHSC operates within them. Acts on proposed revisions to the by -laws. * Adopts policies which determines the purpose, governing principles, functions, activities and courses of action of the NWHHSC. * Assumes ultimate responsibility for internal policies which govern the agency. KEY RESPONSBILITY AREA: Evaluation SPECIFIC DUTIES: * Regularly evaluate and review the agency's operation * Maintain standards of performance * Monitor the activities of the NWHHSC including: .. reviewing reports of the various committees .. confirming, modifying or rejecting proposals .. exercising and providing good judgement on plans of the committees or the Executive Director .. considering, debating and deciding issues • page 4 KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREA: Public and Community Relations 40 SPECIFIC DUTIES * Gives sponsorship and prestige to the agency * Inspire confidence in the agency programs and services * Understands and interprets the work of the NWHHSC to the Community * Relates the work of the NWHHSC to the work of other agencies * Focuses on progress in the community as a whole KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREA: Personnel ' SPECIFIC DUTIES • Selects, employs and evaluates the Executive Director • Approves policies which govern the administration of personnel • Participates in the development of new board members • Participates in the development of newly appointed Advisory Commission members from the individual governing body KEY RESPONSIBILITY AREA: Finance SPECIFIC DUTIES * Approves and monitors the corporate finances of the NWHHSC * Assures that sufficient funds or resources are avail- able for the agency to meet its objectives * Authorizes and accepts the annual audit * Makes purchases and lets contracts in conformance with the legal requirements applicable to contracts and purchases of statutory cities (Joint and Cooperative Agreement) MINIMUM JOB REQUIREMENTS: * Demonstrate an interest in the goals of the NWHHSC * Share expertise in the areas of administration, finance, personnel, program development, program evaluation, public relations, or communication * Allocate adequate time to fulfill the responsibility of an Executive Board member ( a 75% attendance rate at all meetings and functions of the agency is the common standard set by Boards of Directors of non - profit organizations) * Participate on Board Committees as assigned by the Chair of the Executive Board. • page 5 ADVISORY COMMISSION JOB DESCRIPTION ® Position Title: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Advisory Commissioner Position Purpose: Together with other members of the Commission, the individual Commissioner's responsibility is to advise the Board of Directors of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council regarding human services matters and perform various duties and assume responsibilities delegated by the Executive. (Board of Directors of the NWHHSC) Term of Office: An Advisory Commissioner shall be appointed for terms of two (2) years, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his /her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. Upon expiration of his /her term of office a member shall continue to serve if possible until his /her successor is appointed and shall have qualified. Three consecutive absences from regular monthly Commissioner meetings, excused or unexcused, are grounds for removal from the Commission. Compensation: An Advisory Commissioner serves without compensation. Voting Rights: Each Commissioner is entitled to one vote. Commissioners must be present to vote. Meetings: Advisory Commission meets the third Thursday of each month. Advisory Commission and Executive Board shall have at least one joint working meeting annually during the process of developing the annual year's work plan. Responsibilities of the Commission as a Body: 1) recommend service goals, policies, program priorities, objectives and standards for the service area; 2) promote area agency coordination, communication and role clarification; 3) monitor and guide task forces appointed to provide in -depth study of specific programs or social problems; 4) advise the Executive Board of Directors on the annual work P lan and budget requirements; • S) publicize the availability of services; Chairperson page 6 Date 1486 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP CITY EXECUTIVE BOARD ADVISORY COMMISSION Brooklyn Center Geralyn Barone, Fran Gunberg, Secretary Secretary- Treas. John Casey Brooklyn Park William Dix Steven Lundell Champlin Joan Molenaar Linda O'Brian James Ickler Crystal Jack Irving Elsa Skogerboe, Chair Paul Schulte Dayton Shirley Slater Mercedes Kirk Golden Valley Mary Anderson, Syrile Ellison Vice -Chair Sally Strand Maple Grove Lee Mehrkens Charlotte Sadlak Donald Baird, Vice -Chair New Hope Daniel Donahue, Dr. Donna Carter • Chair Chris Bates Osseo Marge Wiley Dorothy Clarke Plymouth Robert Zitur Linda Dieleman Karen Musech Robbinsdale Ryan Schroeder Karen Friederich Hennepin County Representative Bob Ansel it • page 7 • 1486 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL STAFF Mary E. Cayan Executive Director David A. Wagner Planner /Emergency Services Coordinator Vangie F. Gramstad Secretary /Bookkeeper ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM STAFF Linda J. Terrell Rural and Suburban Area Program Director Cindy L. Whelan Northwest Area Program Coordinator Eleanor R. Schmeltzer Northwest Area Program Assistant a 8 page 9 • • • MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE NWHHSC 1985 1986 1987 Population count 19 87L' City Contribution Contribution Request used as 1986 & Per cs= 1987 Request contri:= basis* Brooklyn Center $3,110.25 $4,600.00 $4,748.00 30,630 ,15: Brooklyn Park 4,354.90 7,576.00 7,829.00 50,510 .15;: Champlin 922.33 1,625.00 1,679.00 10,830 _15: Crystal 2,530.14 3,704.00 3,827.00 24,690 .is-;.- Golden Valley 2,275.22 3,312.00 3,422.00 22,080 .15: Hassan 175.34 273.00 282.00 1,820 - 15� Maple Grove 2,181.88 4,168.50 4,307.00 27,790 .15: New Hope 2,303.33 3,417.00 3,531.00 22,780 .15= Osseo 298.08 426.00 440.00 2,840 .15: Plymouth 3,559.40 3,000.00 3,105.00 38,940 .06 Robbinsdale 1,430.16 2,109.00 2,179.00 14,060 .15� TOTAL $23,141.03 $34,210.50 $35,349.00 251,100 * April 1, 198 5 Metropolitan Council Preliminary Population Estimates ** The City of Plymouth contributes funding to both the NWHHSC and the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board and distributes its total contribution between the two organizations. Plymouth decided to allocate the funds in this manner since both organizations serve residents of the city. 1985 FINANCIAL STATEMENT EXPENSES Salaries . ..............................$ 52,596 Pensions ............................... 5,945 Life /health insurance .................. 5,002 Unemployment taxes ..................... 1,670 Office supplies ........................ 1,270 Photocopying ........................... 667 Food / beverage .......................... 566 Audit.. 975 Consulting ............................. 3,554 Maintenance /repair ..................... 428 Mileage allowance ...................... 1,500 Postage. .... ........................... 1,506 Printing ............................... 480 Building rental ........................ 3,026 Communication .......................... 1,972 Liability .............................. 840 Publications /dues ...................... 450 • Equipment purchase /lease ............... 4,248 Newspaper publication .................. 77 Depreciation ........................... 800 Bank charges ........................... 236 Annual meeting ......................... 350 Miscellaneous .......................... 455 Training ............................... 685 Prior year surplus payment ............. 493 TOTAL EXPENSES .........................$ 89,791 REVENUE Hennepin County Planning Contract ..... $ 51,933 Community Social Services Act(CSSA) ... 8,801 Municipal ............................. 25,992 Interest Income ....................... 2,365 Other sources ......................... 3,096 TOTAL REVENUE .........................$ 92,187 REVENUE IN EXCESS OF EXPENDITURES ..... $ 2,396 • page 10 B. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS TO MUNICIPALITIES • The Council's primary activities relate to planning, coordinating, and, in general, advocating for the municipalities of Northwest Hennepin County. The Council provides -a way for citizens, providers and municipal representatives to be involved in Hennepin County human services decision- making -a source of information about human service needs and programs - leadership in the community for the effective mobilization of community resources to meet human service needs - staffing assistance to the municipalities in areas of their involvement in human services, as they may request it -a place to refer citizens with needs and /or problems relating to human services, (i.e elderly, mentally ill, chemically dependent, youth, etc.) - staffing assistance to community groups who want to organize a planning effort to meet specific needs or problems -the capability to do research on human service issues and • needs - planning staff to participate in regional and county planning activities, in behalf of the municipalities -a way to bring county -wide services and programs into our local communities so that citizens can have better access to them - assurance that efforts are being made to coordinate the planning of human services and to deter the unnecessary duplication of services -the ability to make presentations on and provide information about needs and services in the area -the means to develop leadership and interest on the part of citizens to be involved in human services -a way to communicate the concerns of the municipalities regarding human service issues to the providers and involved citizens of the area, and visa -versa -in general, to be available as auxiliary planning staff to the municipalities in areas where human services expertise is required • However, there has been some program development resulting in new human service programs that would not be here if Northwest page 11 Hennepin Human Services Council had not initiated and carried out the project. These are: - Northwest Mental Health Center located in Crystal, it is a satellite of the Hennepin County Mental Health Center, opened in late 1979. (funded by Hennepin County) - Home Free Shelter for Women and Children a direct result of the Council's Family Violence Task Force. Opened in Fall of 1980 and accomodates 30 residents (funded by Hennepin County and the Department of Corrections) - Emergency Energy Assistance Programs has been administered in our area at eight sites for the past 5 years - The Food Co -op in Brooklyn Park began in 1979 as a result of the Council's Community Food and Nutrition Project, - The Farmer's Market Pro.iect: was also initiated under the Food and Nutrition Projects, and has been carried out by the Brooklyn Park, Park and Recreation Department. - The Drop -in Center: for chronically mentally ill adults was initiated by the Council's Mental Health Aftercare Committee. It is located at Elim Church in Robbinsdale and is open 5 days a week. (funded in part by Hennepin County and Community Volunteers) - Emergency Services Fund: The Council has applied for and received $40000.00 of County money for emergency services • in the Northwest area. The money is disbursed through CROSS, PRISM, NEAR, and CEAP. - Community Action Agency(CAA) Advocacy: The Human Services Council worked hard to establish a suburban wide, private, non- profit CAA that will bring approximately $244000 in anti - poverty programs to the suburban area. - Two Senior Transportation Programs: 1 serving Maple Grove, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, and Osseo; and 1 serving New Hope, Crystal, Brooklyn Center, and Golden Valley. Both programs came out of needs assessments and planning activities of the Human Services Council that surfaced transportation as a major issue for the suburban area. In addition, the Council has effectively advocated for County contracts with CEAP, Northwest Youth Diversion Project, the YMCA Detached Worker Program and the House in Robbinsdale, so that these programs can continue to serve our area. Directories published and distributed: - Mini - directory of human services (75,000) - Services for the mentally retarded (500) - Services for the physically disabled (500) - Mini - directory of chemical dependency resources (1500) . - Mini - directory of family violence resources (5000) page 12 COORDINATION OF SERVICES: The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council conducts regular activities to assure the effective coordination of services delivered in the northwest area. Specific examples of current coordination efforts include: 1. ENERGY CONCERNS TASK FORCE: is composed of municipal staff persons, staff of private non - profit organizations; and representatives from the State Department of Energy and Economic Development who meet on a monthly basis to share information on energy - related programs, client needs, and legislation. The task force is submitting a grant proposal to Minnegasco and NSP for additional funds for house doctor programming for homeowners in suburban communities. This task force was organized and is jointly supported by the three suburban human service councils. 2. MENTAL HEALTH AFTERCARE PROVIDERS: is a network of over eighty (80) different providers who meet on a monthly basis to share program information, to make appropriate client referrals, and to discuss client and funding needs. This Network has organized and is staffed by the West and Northwest Human Service Councils. 3. THE NORTHWEST NETWORK: is comprised of the Executive Directors of eight major human service organizations in the Northwest area. This network meets on a monthly basis to share program information, needs and service use information, and to plan networking activities for a broader human service provider audience. 4. CHILD ABUSE /NEGLECT WORKERS NETWORK: is comprised of fifty(50) area service providers who meet on a bi- monthly • basis to address mutual areas of concern, to share program information, and to receive training. 5. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROVIDER NETWORK: The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council holds meetings for the major emergency assistance providers in the Northwest area on a quarterly basis. Discussed regularily are service use statistics, funding source changes, client profiles, legislative concerns, and service -use trends. 6. HOUSING RESOURCES AND ADVOCACY PROJECT: is jointly sponsored by the three suburban human service councils and funded by Community Action of Suburban Hennepin. The project involves twenty -five persons concerned with housing issues or providing housing services to residents of suburban Hennepin County. The purpose of the project is to lay the groundwork for a low- income housing coordination and advocacy system. In summary, the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is currently active in promoting coordination efforts on a regular basis among a total of over one hundred and fifty (150) different service providers in the service areas of energy, mental aftercare, emergency services, youth services, child abuse and neglect issues, and housing issues. The support of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council has been, and will continue to be, critical to the development and maintenance of coordination activities among human service providers in the • northwest area. page 13 WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES ACT? The Community Social Services Act (CSSA), was passed by the • State Legislature in 1979, and makes the County Hoard the responsible agent for ensuring that the necessary human services are provided and that State funds for this purpose are effectively distributed. The County must include the following in the annual Community Social Services Act Plan: - a statement of goals - a statement regarding the method(s) used to identify persons in need of services - an inventory of services - a description of proposed services - the dollar amount allocated to each service - a description of monitoring and evaluating procedures The CSSA legislation also requires that the County provide for citizen input into the planning and budget process of the County involving human service programs. Hennepin County has contracted with Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to provide for citizen participation in the Community Social Services Act process for our area. HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL'S ROLE . The role of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council and the 7 other Human Services Councils in Hennepin County, is to review, solicit input, and make recommendations regarding the planning, development, and delivery of human services in Hennepin County. WHAT IS THE PROCESS? The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council will work with new and existing committees and organizations to ensure that their recommendations are passed on to Hennepin County as part of the Community Social Services Act planning process. Council will seek the involvement of existing committees or organizations in the areas of mental health, mental retardation, chemical dependency, child care, domestic abuse, services to seniors, services to the handicapped, and others as needed. Where no existing committees exist, the Council will work to form them. Some of the specific activities and responsibilities of the Council regarding the Community Social Services Act process are as follows: • page 14 1. Collect demographic data, survey results, and services utilization data concerning the human service delivery system in the northwest Hennepin County area. • 2. Hold meetings with Hennepin County Community Services Department managers and staff in order to be aware of current and future levels of County- funded human services for the northwest suburbs. 3. Meet with local human service agency directors and staff to gather information regarding the perceived current and future needs of those they serve. 4. Provide for citizen input through a series of public meetings, focus groups, and survey research. 5. Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council committees and the full Advisory Commission will review the information gathered by activities 1 - 4. Based on that review, the Advisory Commission will formulate priorities for attention from Hennepin County and make recommendations to be included in the annual Community Social Services Act Report. The Advisory Commission will then recommend approval of the Community Social Services Act priorities by the Executive Board. b. The Executive Board will review and approve the annual Community Social Services Act Report. • 7. The Community Social Services Act Report will be submitted to the Coordinating Council, Hennepin County Community Services Department, and to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. For an overview of the CSSA process, see the attached flow- chart. • page 15 COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES ACT PLANNING PROCESS FOR NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY RESEARCH COMMUNITY SURVEYS DIAL and `• SERVICES FOCUS '� � ` �� 1 DEPARTMENT GROUPS `.` `% `.� %% ` %%% 1 I t 1 `` i 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 HENNEPIN 1 PUBLIC 'N.W.H.H.S.C. 'N.W.H.H.S.C. 1 1 COUNTY ADVISORY EXECUTIVE 1 1 BOARD MEETINGS COMMISSION BOARD A 1 1 of 1 1 COMMISSIONERS 1 1 1 1 i 1 t i i COMMITTEES j HUMAN i and SERVICES f SPECIAL ' L.)o COORDINATING INTEREST COUNCIL GROUPS E ----------- -- ------ -------------------------------- - - - - -- 1 YEAR ----------------------------------------------------- - - --�j * Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council CITIZEN PARTICIPATION • The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council represents the communities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Corcoran, Crystal, Dayton, Golden Valley, Hanover, Hassan, Maple Grove, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, Robbinsdale and Rogers. The human service needs listed on the following page are the result of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council's 1986 citizen participation and prioritization activities. These activities involved over 570 individuals voluntarily contributing over 1,700 hours to define and prioritize the human service needs of northwest Hennepin County. The process consisted of 3 citizen surveys, 1 service - provider survey, 3 service - provider focus groups, 1 public hearing, 23 committee meetings, input from area municipalities and school districts, and over 8,000 public information flyers being distributed. We believe the following human service priorities reflect the opinions of our residents as well as the observations of our area service - providers. • page 17 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICE COUNCIL'S • 1986 COMMUNITY SOCIAL SERVICES ACT PRIORITIES PRIORITIES TARGET GROUP 1. Affordable, Quality, Low and Moderate- Income Family Counseling Families and Individuals 2. Drug and Alcohol Abuse Services Adults and Adolescents 3. Emergency Food, Shelter, and Low - income Families Clothing and Individuals 4. Physical and Sexual Abuse or Adults and Adolescents Neglect of Children 5. Shelters for Battered Women Battered Women and their Children 6. Low -cost Health Care Low and Moderate - Income Families and Individuals 7. Parenting Education and Families and Individuals Support Services S. Subsidized Child Care Low and Moderate- Income Families 9. Transportation for Seniors Seniors and Disabled and /or the Disabled Persons 10. Programs and Support Services Seniors for Seniors 11. Residential and Support Services Mentally Ill Persons and for the Mentally ill their Families 12. Residential and Support Services Mentally Retarded Persons for the Mentally Retarded and their Families • page 18 SURPLUS COMMODITY PROGRAM The U.S.D.A. Surplus Commodity Distribution Program is a • federally funded program geared to serve lower income residents by providing them with surplus dairy products, canned, and /or dry goods on a monthly basis. The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council coordinates this distribution for the residents of the fourteen northwest suburban Hennepin County cities. Approximately 4,000 households, which represents more than 12,750 individuals, are served through this program every month. There are two distribution sites in the northwest area: THORSON COMMUNITY CENTER, 7323 -58th Avenue North, Crystal. for residents of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale and C.R.O.S.S., (Christians Reaching Out in Social Services), 10455 -93rd Avenue North, Maple Grove, for residents of Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Corcoran, Dayton, Hassan, Maple Grove, Osseo, and Rogers. The distributions are held on the third Saturday of every month from 9:00 a.m. to noon. Home deliveries can also be arranged for the handicapped and homebound. Program eligibility is based on the income guidelines that are subject to change by the State of Minnesota. Present guidelines, as of August 1985, are: Household size Annual Income Monthly Income 1 $ 9,712.50 $ 809.38 2 13,042.50 1,086.88 3 16,372.50 1,364.38 4 19,702.50 1,641.88 5 23,032.50 1,919.38 6 26,362.50 2,196.88 7 29,692.50 2,474.38 8 33,022.50 2,751.88 9 369352.50 3,029.38 10 39,682.50 3,306.88 11 43,012.50 3,584.38 12 46,342.50 3,861.88 Program registration is conducted at every distribution at both sites. People wishing to register for the program must show identification that verifies their suburban area address. Signing the registration form constitutes a formal statement by the applicant that they are income eligible for the program and authorizes the Federal government to verify that income if necessary. • page 19 ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The Minnesota Energy Assistance Program (EAP) is part of • the State Department of Jobs and Training. The State receives funding for this program from the Federal Government. This program is designed to help low income households pay a portion of their heating costs. It is not designed to cover total energy costs. To be eligible, a household must meet the low- income and asset guidelines of the Energy Assistance Program. The amount of energy assistance a household may receive is based on the total gross income, household size, and type of fuel used for heating. Both homeowners and renters are eligible for energy assistance, except in the case of those households living in government subsidized housing and whose heat is included in their rent. They are NOT E1_IGIHL.E for funds through tho Energy Assistance Program. In the Northwest Hennepin area, applications are taken by appointment only. A household may apply for energy assistance between October 1st and May 31st at one of our many intake sites located throughout the Northwest Hennepin area. Home visits are also available to those who are homebound. Households do not have to be in a shut -off or past due situation to apply for assistance. The Northwest Hennepin EAP office (located within the Human Services Council) takes 48% of all the applications in Rural and Suburban Hennepin County, with a staff of 2 full -time employees, 2 part -time temporary employees, Minnesota Emergency Employment Development Program (MEED) employees, and many dedicated volunteers. page 20 • EMERGENCY SERVICES PROGRAM • The Emergency Services Program is a Hennepin County- funded program designed to assist northwest suburban area residents who find themselves in a short -term crisis situation. The Emergency Services Program can provide services in the areas of rent, food, clothing, transportation, short -term shelter, and limited utility assistance. The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council provides administration of the Emergency Services Program to enable area service agencies to better meet the demand for emergency shelter, food, and clothing of its clients. The use of Council staff in the administration of the program allows each participating agency to expand their direct service capability while not necessitating additional agency staff. The active participation of the various service agencies also allows for greater dispersal of emergency services throughout northwest Hennepin County. The target population are those people in economic crisis, who are not currently receiving any other form of County assistance and who have a definite plan of action that will sustain themselves after receiving this one -time financial assistance. The Emergency Services Program provides one -time financial assistance, in the form of vouchers and through vendor agreements, to those in need of food, shelter, transportation, and clothing. Each participating direct - service agency uses intake workers or volunteers who assess the request for service and issue vouchers accordingly. Intake workers or volunteers report either to the Executive Director of the direct - service agency or to the Council's Emergency Services Program Coordinator. The participating direct - service agencies are: P.R.I.S.M., 3550 Winnetka Avenue, New Hope; C.R.O.S.S., 10455 93rd Avenue, Maple Grove; C.E.A.P., 7231 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center; N.E.A.R., 7323 58th Avenue, Crystal; and HomeFree Shelter for Women and Children, 3415 East Medicine Lake Boulevard, Plymouth. The Council's Emergency Services Program Coordinator maintains General Ledgers, Accounts Payable /Accounts Receivable Ledgers, prepares monthly services use reports, quarterly service use and financial reports, prepares year -end reports, prepares the annual purchase of service grant proposal, meets on a regular basis with direct - service agency representatives, maintains services coordination and provides outreach and referral services. page 21 • • N E W S L E T T E R F A L L 1 9 8 6 This is the second of two newsletters being published by the Housing Re- sources Coordination and Advocacy Project sponsored jointly by Northwest Hennepin Services Council, South Hennepin Human Services Council and West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. Funding is provided by Com- munity Action of Suburban Hennepin (C.A.S.H.). The purpose of this newsletter is to provide community leaders and service providers with information concerning low income housing issues, problems, and resources in suburan Hennepin County. The end of the Housing Re- sources Coordination and Advocacy Project will also bring to an end this newsletter. If you have any comments or suggestions regarding the news- letter or feel that an ongoing newletter addressing low income housing issues would be helpful, please call Bruce Larson, 920 -5533. SUBURBAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE OFFERS redevelopment authorities to learn from RECOMMENDATIONS ON LOW their experience in working directly INCOME HOUSING ISSUES with groups faced with housing problems. Suburban municipalities were also ques- • It's estimated that there are 5,381 tioned regarding their use of special • households headed by women who are in Programs to address this issue. The re- need of housing assistance in suburban sults of the survey of municipalities is Hennepin County. described later in the newsletter. • Of the 5,900 elderly households with incomes low enough to qualify for hous- FEDERAL LEVEL The Committee concluded that housing is ing assistance, approximately 4,400 are renters. not a local issue and cannot be solved at a local. and /or state level. The Com- • Currently the federal government feels that meeting the needs of the low income mittee felt that it must be addressed at is more properly the business of state all levels with primary responsibility and local governments. This has re- at the federal level. sulted in a 608 reduction of federal. It also realized though, that the cont- housing assistance over the last six tinued involvement of the federal gov- years. ernment was dependent upon the local • The 1986 tax revisions have eliminated community requiring this involvement key tools used for financing low and from its elected federal officials. It moderate income rental housing. No therefore recommended that a coalition effort has been made to provide al.terna- of local groups be organized to promote tives. a greater level of government involve - These are some of the more critical ment, especially at the federal level, and that such an organization develop facts the Suburban Hennepin Low Income Housing Advisory Committee learned in and coordinate activities in the su urban Hennepin community to increase the completing its charge to develop a set community's awareness of low income of recommendations and strategies for housing issues. It was further recom- addressing low- income housing issues in mended that the effort be conducted with suburban Hennepin County. other groups in the state to impact The Committee, as part of its delibera- federal housing policy. tions, reviewed a number of studies It also realized that the involvement produced by the Metropolitan Council, of the federal government did not ab- Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and solve state and local governments and other research groups. It polled local the broader community of all responsi- emergency service providers, housing and bility. e j 4100 Vernon Avenue South Hennepin Human of: 2 2 Northwest Hennepin Human Service Council page g St. Louis ter«. Minnesota 55418 South Hennepin Human Service Council Funded by Communih' Action for Suburban Hennepin (512) 820 -5533 • Housing Resources Workshop, both part of a Low Income Issues Conference which took place October 14th. �. y. • The publication of a guide for finding fir• affordable housing called "Home Sweet ._ Home " . Both are more fully explained in other parts of the newsletter. PANEL DISCUSSION HELD ON SUBURBAN LOW INCOME HOUSING ISSUES LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL Over the last several years the Twin The Committee recommended: Cities Metropolitan area has lost ap- e The development of a comprehensive proximately 2000 subsidized housing state housing policy setting forth the units. This was revealed at the panel State's role in addressing low income discussion "Where Will I Be Living in housing issues. 1990 ?" held October 14th. This was one • That local and state governmental ag- of the activities of the Low Income Is- encies actively seek out and give tech- sues Conference held that day. nical assistance to not - for - profit ag- encies to provide low cost housing in The panel discussion was moderated by the suburbs. Tom Fulton, President of the Mpls. /St. • That local organizations and govern- Paul Family Housing Fund. Participants mental agencies support home sharing included Grace Nelson, fast President of programs in suburban Hennepin County as the MN. Senior Federation; Betty one low cost method of providing ade- Christianson of the MN. Task Force on • clunte housing. Women, Work and Welfare; James Solem, Executive Director of the Minnesota • That a coordinated client assistance service be established t suburban Housing Finance Agency: Nancy Reeves, Hennepin County to help with tenant/ Director of Human Services for the Met - landlord relations, discrimination prob- H o si n g an Council; Bruce No City f o lems, mortgage assistance, financial as- Houusing Specialist from -the City of sistance for up front rental costs and Richfield; Mary Anderson, Mayor of assistance in locating low income hous- Golden Valley, Senator Gen Olson, Minnestrista; Rep. Chris Tjornhom, ing. • That 3 permanent organization be de- Richfield; Rep. Gloria Segal, St. signated or established to develop and Louis Park; and Phil. Cohen, Legislative coordinate activities regarding low in- Assistant, Senator Durenberger's Office. come issues in suburban Hennepin County. It was felt by the Committee that a joint effort by the three suburban human service councils could fill this role. They were selected based on their ex- perience and purpose. The Committee was also involved in pro- viding guidance to several activities of the Housing Resources Coordination „ The message delivered by the represent- -_.,,,` atives of those in need of housing was 4 . that a continuing and increasing need for housing assistance existed. The elderly and single parent heads-of- households especially needed assist - `, ance. It was mentioned that because � those with housing needs were so desper- ate they were very susceptible to indi- �:__ viduals taking advantage of this vulner- - ---.�. - -- r'� ability. Education was identified as w., "` 12, very critical to assisting those in M; c CITY " �„1 need. Panel participants directly in- H Att y :� volved in planning and administering housing programs were not optimistic about being able to address these needs. and Advocacy Project. These included: The current philosophy of the federal • The sponsorship of a panel discussion government is that housiny problems " Where Will I Be Living In 1990 ?" and a page 23 • i should be dealt with at the local level. sidents if the tools to do so are avail- This has resulted in a 60% decrease in able. It shows, in some cases that they funding for programs administered by the have been willing to go beyond this Department of Housing and Urban Develop- point using their own resources to sup - ment. At the same time other tools such plement other programs when available. as tax incentives which spurred invest- It also is apparent that these suburban ment in rental housing have been el.im- communities with their limited resources inated and tax exempt bonds which were cannot be the primary resource for ad- used to subsidize the construction of dressing the housing needs of their low low income housinq have been severly re- and moderate income residents. stricted. No effort has been made to compensate for the removal of these 0 tools. The result has been the loss of 0 0 0 0 �000 ❑0 approximately 2000 subsidized housing 0 0 000 I units in the metropolitan area as men- i tioned earlier. As part of its review of low- income The policy makers on the panel offered housing activities in suburban Hennepin no easy answers. In fact, there was a County, the Housing Resources Coordina- feeling that more questions had been tion Advocacy Project conducted a survey raised that there were answers for. of area municipalities. The objectives What was emphasized in this part of the of this survey were to determine the in- discussion was the need for those eo le v olvement of local municipalities P P p sties in low and organizations concerned with the and moderate income housing efforts, problem of low income housing to or- what financial resources they used and ganize and develop solutions. They which programs they felt should be con- should then make the various levels of tinued or duplicated. government aware of these solutions, • educate the community to the problem, Of the 44 cities in suburban Hennepin coordinate their activities with like County 25 responded. Fourteen responded minded groups, and show their continued that they either had no low or moderate concern by following up with their gov- income housing programs in their city or ernment representatives. The wrap -up that such programs located there did not reiterated that the constituency on have local involvement. The other 11 housing issues needed to be expanded. communities responding indicated some While housing was the largest single level of direct involvement in housing item in most families' budgets, it did other h 9 than the home improvement p ent loan anc not have a large and vocal constituency. es 9 Y rant program. Four of the communities 9 P 9 i used tax increment financing to write Specific solutions identified included: down land costs, four used local funds shared housing, mother -in -law apart- for various levels of assistance, three ments, lowering property taxes on rental communities have provided public housing property and increasing the number of and five had made use of Community De- subsidized units. velopment Block Grant funds. As can be seen, several communities have used multiple programs in addressing local 0 housing needs. 00 00 0❑ oa 00 Nineteen of the cities did not respond. Only 5 of these communties appeared to have no low and moderate assistance HOUSING ACTIVITIES available to residents. Eight of the BY AREA MUNICIPALITIES cities were sites for rental assistance through either the Section 8 Program or the 236 Program, one had public housing The basic thrust for providing low and for the elderly, ive others d y, were in- moderate erate housing in the United States by volved in Rent Assistance programs of the private sector has been in response the Metro Council Housing and Redevelop- to incentives provided by the federal ment Authority. 1I1 nnu•nl . (; i vI•n ( 16:. .�I I � ..n li, C i l i a .; • in suburban Hennepin County should be commended. Twenty of the cities are sites for federally subsidized rental property and 34 communities participate 0 oO in the Rent Assistance program of the 0 Metro HRA. P13 00 o0 000 The information in this survey shows a e 2 4 willingness by the communities to re- pag spond to the housing needs of their re- • Only those cities which have been di- do not want to leave their hor.:e commu- ;ectly involved in low and moderate in- nity which requires changing schools, come housing projects made recommenda- child care :pork and friends. The lack tions. of afforda* 13 housing would also result in suburban polio Binding families with The programs receiving the most endorse- small children who live in their cars, ments included home improvement grants, or who camp out. These agencies find it scattered site home ownership for the difficult to locate affordable housing moderate income, Section 8 housing and for lack of an effective ongoing refer - other rent assistance programs. ral. system. They have also found that the high rents in the suburban area are not taken into account by Hennepin County in setting grant levels for emer- gency assistance. These agencies also stated that potential welfare reforms l- w—T &yw w, cut public assistance would in- crease the number of homeless families HlfL1S1>Iy�c,, in the suburbs and increase substan- tially the demand for other services which they provide. { In discussing solutions, increasing the ' supply of affordable housing was iden- tified as essential. This would require community education to bring pressure to bear on policymakers, especially at the national level. It was suggested that community based organizations including Local churches should be involved in this effort. Other suggestions included • the development of transitional housing projects in the suburbs for suburban families, adjusting local codes to allow "mother -in -law apartments and the fund- ing of shared housing programs. The agencies involved in the roundtable HOUSING ROUNDTABLE HELD expressed an interest in being involved in tackling housing issues but because The Housing Resources Coordination and of staffing constraints they felt an- Advocacy Project sponsored a Housing other group was needed to do this. One Roundtable Discussion September 4, 1986. suggestion was to refer this !:eed for Sixteen people representing 10 suburban community education on low income hous- agencies participated. The focus of the ing issues to the Board of Community discussion was the housing needs of sub- Action for Suburban Hennepin for pos- urban low- income, female- headed house- sible action. holds and battered women. The purpose was to identify housing problems faced by the group, suggest pc2ssible solutions and explore ways the group could work together on solving these needs. THE MAX 200 PROGRAM During the discussion a number of spe- This issue features a locally supported cific problems were identified by the rental assistance program. It is very participating agencies. Employees of encouraging when a municipality is will - these agencies work, on a daily basis ing to make use of local funds to pro - with many suburban households faced with vide rental assistance when there are so huusiny problems. A numao: of basic many pressures priced un the limited prcalems were identified. The most com- funds municipalities have available. mon was lack of affordable housing. Other problems included the lack of The need for rental assistance is one of transitional housing for suburban bat- the problems most frequently mentioned tent, ered women and the large amount of when discussing housing problems with oney, often the fi-st and last months suburban human service providers. Com- plus security required by munity groups and local agencies may Landlords. want to look at this program as a pocPn- The lark of affordable housing has re- tial. model for providing rental assist - suJtcc, in I. number of single - )ar.cnts ance. pay_nc in excess of 50% of their income page 25 towards rent. They do this because they • The Max 200 Program is a short term rental assistance program funded by they St. Louis Park Housing and Redevelopment [- �Ey a dLELE Authority. The program is targeted to r1�A I� help families whose income exceeds the !- �{_, ' I Section 8 subsidized housing income' limits but are potentially eligible. There are enough funds available to as- sist 25 families for 4 years. The length A Guide to Help You Find of the program will be determined by how much assistance is needed by the parti- Affordable Housing cipants. When the funds are gone the program will end. The program is cur- problem is then followed by either spec - rently limited and a long waiting list ific information or a lising of re- exists. sources which can be used to solve the problem. The housing needs discussed All types of rental housing are in- include: subsidized housing, ownership cl.uded. It is totally up to the family and mortgages, discr.im.ina[i.on, util- to decide which type of unit to choose. ities, tenant /landlord relations, a The minimum monthly assistance is $25. guide to renting and searching for af- The maximum assistance is $200 per fordable housing alternatives for fam- month. il.ies, singles, handicapped and elderly. The second part is a directory providing ®� phone numbers and addresses of resources households may contact for assistance. '� �^- �z.� • The directory will be available after October 1st. • The family chooses a unit that they like. The landlord must agree to sign Contact: West Hennepin Human Services a one year lease with the family and a Planning Board one year contract with the Housing and 4100 Vernon Avenue South Redevelopment Authority (HRA). The fam- St. Louis Park, MN 55416 ily pays all normal security deposits, application fees, etc. Also, no all.ow- Phone: . . . . . . . 920 -5533 ance is made in the subsidy calculation for utility costs. Any increase or de- f crease in family income of 5% or more must be reported to the HRA and a new rent calculation done. At the end of the lease terms, a renewal lease will be \ made or the family has the option to move to a different unit. If you are interested in obtaining more information on how this program has been IER set up and administered, please contact a St. Louis Park Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416; 924 -2578. SHARE -A -HOME, A NEW PROGRAM FOR SENIORS SUBURBAN IIOUSTNG DIRECTORY RELEASED SHARE -A -HOME is a program providing age The Housing Resources Coordination and 55 or older homeowners an opportunity to Advocacy Project haF recently released share their home with z: person or a housing guide clalled "Home Sweet possibly a family. The is spon- Home." This publication is to provide sored by the Housing F�source Program, low income residents of suburban Henne- an affliate of Lutheran Social Services. pin County with a self-help guide to ad- dress housing problems they may face. Share -a -Home is designed to help older The manual is divided into two parts. adults remain in their homes when inde- The first part is designed to help pendent living becomes difficult. identify specific housing needs by list- Shared housing can help the older adul ing a number of common problems. Each page 26 • stay in their own home and neighborhood, ferent type of housing arrangement. Some provide them with extra income to keep of those who own their homes may want to their homes in good repair and provide stay where they are but feel a need for security and companionship. The program additional financial or service support. is also a great benefit for the person In many cases they do not know what is who moves in. It provides a decent, af- available or even who to ask. Others fordable living arrangement with the may have decided to move to smaller benefit of companionship. quarters to lessen their responsibility for home maintenance and more directly !tome owners and live -ins are matched by accomodate their needs. These people, the Share -a -Home staff on the basis of many times, are overwhelmed by the many life styles, values, time commitments, housing options available to them. and expectations. Both parties are thoroughly interviewed and their refer- To assist these people a free seminar ences checked. The program assists was offered Saturday, October 18th, 9:30 homeowners and live -ins to work out to 12 noon. The seminar, "Housing Op- mutually acceptable financial and living tinns; Should I Stay or Move," was de- arrangements. Follow -up calls or visits signed for senior citizens and their are made once the individuals are family members. The seminar explored matched. The Share -a -Home staff is also various housing options and services now available to the participant if a con- available to older adults. flict develops later. A registration and placement fee is charged to help This type of seminar is likely to meet cover the cost of the program. the needs of many communities in subur- ban Hennepin County. This would be es- If you are interested in the program or pecially true for those communities know of someone who might be able to use whose population is aging. If your com- it, please call 537 -8732. munity or organization is interested in • conducting a similar type of program, SEMINAR FOR SENIORS you may call Melinda Ludwiczak at the MAKING HOUSING DECISIONS Rolbinsdale Senior Center. The number is 535 -1790. tiny older people face a time in their life where they must decide whether to stay where they live or move to a dif- page 27 • C. SAMPLES OF DATA COLLECTED BY THE COUNCIL This section of the Municipal Profile contains population, income, and housing data, Council program use data, and Hennepin County Public Assistance Program utilization data. The Data Profile found on the following page lists unique characteristics of your community. The Data Profile high- lights some of the information found in the rest of this last section. The combination of this information can be used to assess a community's relative level of "need In particular, the use of program utilization rates are helpful in documenting relative levels of need, substantiating requests for additional human service programming, and appropriate "targeting" of limited human service program dollars. • BROOKLYN CENTER DATA PROFILE * From 1980 to 1985 Brooklyn Center experienced a decline in population, from 31,230 in 1980 to 30,630 in 1985. However, during these five years the number of households increased, from 10,751 in 1980 to 11,311 in 1985. * The Brooklyn Center housing mix by tenure in 1980 was 7,438 owner - occupied units or 69% and 3,313 renter - occupied units or 31 %. * In 1980, Brooklyn Center's 60 years and older population represented 10.4% of the total Brooklyn Center population. By comparison, the northwest suburban percentage of persons 60 years and older was 9.4%. * In 1980, Brooklyn Center's 5 years and younger population represented 6.5% of the total Brooklyn Center population. * In 1980, Brooklyn Center's 60 years and older population living below the poverty level stood at 4.6% of Brooklyn Center's total 60 years and older population. In comparison, the northwest suburban rate was 5.2% of all persons 60 years and older were living below the poverty level. In 1980, Brooklyn Center's overall poverty rate stood at 5.4% of the total Brooklyn Center population, or 1,676 persons. In the northwest suburbs the poverty rate stood at 4.0 %. * In 1980, Brooklyn Center's "near- poor" (125 % of poverty) rate was 6.6% of the total Brooklyn Center population. The northwest suburban level in 1980 was 5.6% of the total northwest suburban population. * From 1983 to 1985, the number of Brooklyn Center residents receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) decreased from 455 to 383 recipients. This follows the pattern of AFDC utilization for the total northwest suburban area. * From 1981 to 1985, the number of Brooklyn Center residents receiving Medical Assistance rose steadily, from 126 to 240 recipients. For the northwest suburbs as a whole, the number of persons receiving Medical Assistance increased from 1981 to 1984 and then declined in 1985. page 28 • NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY POPULATION STATISTICS 1980 Hennepin County Population = 941,411 1900 NW 11ca1ir1op1r County Population - 235,427 or 2`.'i% of total 1980 Hennepin County Households = 365,536 1980 NW Hennepin County Households = 79,533 or 22% of total 1980 Hennepin County Households, Female Head of Household with person(s) under 18 years of age = 21,915 1980 NW Hennepin County Households, Female Head of Household with person(s) under 18 years of age = 5,727 or 26% of total 1985 Metropolitan Council Estimated Hennepin County Households = 391,701 1985 Metropolitan Council Estimated NW Hennepin County Households = 91,718 or 23% of total April 1986 Metropolitan Council Estimated Hennepin County Population = 974,629 April 1986 Metropolitan Council Estimated NW Hennepin County Population = 263,317 or 27% of total APRIL 1986 1985 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED POPULATION HOUSEHOLDS BROOKLYN CENTER 30,267 11,311 BROOKLYN PARK 51,424 18,545 CHAMPLIN 11,642 3,398 CORCORAN 4,820 1,390 CRYSTAL 24,628 9,112 DAYTON 4,176 1,209 GOLDEN VALLEY 21,541 8,018 HANOVER 242 66 HASSAN 1,910 494 MAPLE GROVE 30,969 * 9,317 NEW HOPE 22,770 8,110 OSSEO 2,801 1,015 PLYMOUTH 41,207 13,704 ROBBINSDALE 14,212 5,811 ROGERS 708 218 TOTAL 263,317 91,718 * JULY 17, 1985 SPECIAL U.S. CENSUS DATA . SOURCES: METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SPECIAL U.S. CENSUS DATA page 28A March 20, 1986 1980 Populations by Age for Northwest Suburban Hennepin County 55 - 64 Yrs. 65 - 74 yrs. 75- 84 yrs. 85+ yrs. • Brooklyn Center 2 1 985 1 535 135 Brooklyn Park 1,769 741 249 55 Champlin 332 189 92 32 Corcoran 176 84 41a 14a Crystal 2,742 1,167 472 140 Dayton 166b 112b 54b 19b Golden Valley 1,385 1 630 265 Hanover 10b 7b 3b lb Hassan 73b 49b 24b 8b Maple Grove 658 234 88 19 New Hope 19413 691 678 404 Osseo 278 204 99a 35a • Plymouth 1,764 743 266 54 Robbinsdale 2 1,491 760 222 Rogers 27b 18b 9b 3b Total 15,786 8 4,000 1,403 SOURCE: 1980 Census of Population and Housing, U.S. Census Bureau a Figures arrived at by using an overall rate -of- change extrapolation. Compiled by the Northwest Human Services Council. b Due to the fact that these communities share a common census tract, figures were arrived at by extrapolating each communities population percentage to the total census tract figure. Compiled by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. page 29 • SELECTED STATISTICS ON SCHOOL DISTRICT #281 December 17, 1985 SOURCES: 1980 Census Child Care Information Network FAMILIES WITH NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PERSONS UNDER PERSONS 65 FEMALE H'SHOLDER HOME-BASED DAY CARE CITY 5 YEARS OF AGE YEARS AND OLDER WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18 DAY CARE PROVIDERS CENTERS Brooklyn Center 2,03a (6.5) 1,967 (6.3 %) 806 53 4 Brooklyn Park 4,333 (10.0 %) 1,040 (2.4 %) 1,210 131 8 o Crystal 1,584 (6.2 %) 1,788 (7.0 %) 483 66 1 Golden Valley 1,048 (4.68) 2,118 (9.3 %) 320 22 2 New Hope 1,524 (6.6 %) 1,778 (7.7 %) 682 31 2 Plymouth 2,340 (7.4 %) 1,075 (3.4 %) 505 49 3 Robbinsdale 808 (5.6 %) 2,466 (17.1 %) 236 24 3 Total 13,667 (7.1 %) 12,232 (6.4 %) 4,242 376 23 DEtf)GIIAPIiIC CHARACTERISTICS OF OLDER HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTS Age 60+ Male Female t s 5+ _ Axe 85+ Number f Total Member 0+ Number 60& Nua5er I 6o+ Number % 60+ Gao�_aeh Area 60+ Ponu latlon 60+ Po elation 60+ Po elation 75+ Po ulatlon 85+ Po uIat_x United States 35. 629 811 1 1 1 5. 14 9 1 08 2.0 20 57 9 5 .0 9 9 5 7 2 .0 2 239 721 6. t Ifinncsota 650,202 - 16 .0 4 277,593 2 . T 372,609 57.3 ---- 209.416 32.2E 52059 A .11 Metropolttnn Area 2T6 9)_ 13.1 103 965 39.81 156 969 �o.2f 2,72 31.7 20,9 0 ,cs H ennepin Coun 1 0 ,2 37 1 4 54.999 39.2 5 0.81 45.912 32.7 11 .754 .1t Mlnnc Clty 7 19. 2 6.51 ,752 3•51 27. 1 37• % 7 9.1% Northwest Area 19 ,110 9., 6,126 4i.5 10 9�1 57.5% 5 190 27.2 1,3 95 7.31 Brook Center City 3 , 2 3 3 10. 1,451_ _ 4.91 1 2 55.1E 667 20.6% 132 - 4.11 Orook Park City 1, 72 .u% 764 44.2 964 55.81 04 17.61 55 3•Zf Champlin Cl 41 4.6% 205 9.2 212 50. 102 24.5 2 .7t Corcoran City 2 ?.1 5 .21 112 50.7 10 9. 29.0 13 5. f A:ystel ci 11 .�� 1,3 115.9 1 5 5N.1 12 21.0 140 Pt Rnton Cit 21 3 5.3% 96 45.1 117 54.0 %1 19.21 a PS Go lden Va lley City 3 JO 14 - 1 - 1,391 43.0 1. h7 57.0E 95 27.6% 265 8.2% Ihnover City 20 6.1% 10 50.01 10 50.0% 5 25.0 lta ssan Township 119 57 4 7.9% 6 2 52.1% 23 19.3 3 1 6 Ct Miaple Grove City 567 2 .8% 274 48.3 293 51.71 107 18 .91 19 ct Hew II 2 , N2 10. 820 - 5.0 1 522 5.0 1,082 6.2 O, City 627 21. 22 .0 01 .0 295 7.0% la�bbi City 3. 3 ?2.0 1,367 3 Q, 8 1 2,06 0.21 902 28.61 222 6. =t lagers City 3 5 .5% 1 4. 20 55.61 11 0. 1 2 5.tS Hest Area 2 , 00 3 1 5.41; 10 100 2.1 1 0 5 .9 7 2 2 . f 1 725 7.i1 w flerpbaven Cit 74 11 .9% 2 1 22 51.2 121 27.3% 30 S ~ Excel sior Cit 1 1 96 1 9.7% 759 31. 33 8.11 197 3 9.7E 1 Greenfie City 1 15 8.3% 56 .7 59 - 5 1 . 3 % 33 28.7% 9 7.°: Greenwood City 9OT 1 4.4E 5 .91 9 52.11 25 26.6% 11 lbpkins City 2 , 9 +1 1 9.3 1209 36.8 1.873 3.2 1,022 34. f 271 9.'f Lrdcee City 23 5 9.9 117 11 50.2 2 2 % 11 'f lnnx Lake City 191 1 0.9$ 105 55.0% 70 36.6% 28 14. Loret Ctit 16 15.53 21 45.7% 25 5 % 19 1.3 5 10. =: thele Plaln City 23 19.61 90 3 .11 1 1.9% 112 47.51 1 1_hdicine L ake City _ 59 14 .11 27 45.8% 32 54.2% 11 18.6% 4 f; t_F!dln City 19 1• .6 6% 93 46. % 106 53.31 66 33.2% 14 7. - 1 Minnetonka cit 3. 8H 5 9 .91 1,722 X11 . 2.123 55.21 933 24. 3% 251 Minnetonka Dench City - 6 7 11 .7% 33 9 311 50.7% 11 16.1% Mlnnetriat City 2 99 - 9.2 152 _ 51.01 1 46 49.0% 56 18.8% Wund C1 t 9 10.2 0 .2 5 6 56.8% 256 27.1 5g Q•ono C1ty O7 11 .81 91 8.5 1 51. 1 19 2 4.5 4 5. °S Elymoutn ci 1,7 50_ 5 8.8% 02 50.4% 668 9.6 320 - 18.3% 5 Ro ckford C ity 16 4 .21i 7 9 56. f 37.5% 1 2• 2t. _A nthon y_C ttY 9 73 i 7.3f �72 501 51.51 167 11 . 2 i St lt<mifacius City 107 12.51; 9 5. % 58 5N. F% 7 3 .9% 11 St Louts Par City ,31fi 19.1% 3 291 39.6% 5,025 0. 1 2, 89 29.9 %_ 634 Shorew Ci 425 _ 9 .1 19 46.6 22 5 .4 f _ 21 20.71 ;. S1 Lake C 1ty 355 24.2% 119 33_ 5 236 6.5% 169 7.61 5 1..' Ton en Clty 165 12 % 5•Sf 90 5N .5 3 21. % 10 H.l yzata C ity 785 21.7 2_73 512 5.21 2 1 33.2 49 f.:; Noodtand city 72 13•'7 28 38.9; 1 i 17 23 61 3 r October, 1905 Page 1 501111CF, V.S. Census, 1980 Cnmplled b Program on Aging, Motropolftan Council, 300 Motro Square Oullding, 7th and Robert Streets, St, Paul, Minnesota 55101, 291_6540. 1980 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE TOTAL OWNER % OWNER RENTER % RENTER OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED BROOKLYN 10,751 7,438 69% 3,313 31% CENTER BROOKLYN 15,268 9,041 59% 6,227 41% PARK CHAMPLIN 2,733 2,192 80% 541 20% CORCORAN 1,243 1,159 93% 84 7% CRYSTAL 8,977 7,000 78% 1,977 22% DAYTON 1,177 1,104 94% 73 6% GOLDEN 7,597 6,414 84% 1 16% VALLEY HANOVER 194 159 82% 35 18% HASSAN 452 421 93% 31 7% MAPLE 6,239 5,914 95% 325 5% GROVE NEW HOPE 7,627 4,647 61% 2,980 39% OSSEO 1,015 599 59% 416 41% PLYMOUTH 10,491 7,793 74% 2,698 26% ROBBINSDALE 5,705 4,251 75% 1,454 25% ROGERS 210 127 60% 83 40% TOTAL 79,679 58,259 73% 21,420 27% SOURCE: 1980 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING page 32 AVERAGE 2- BEDROOM RENT RATES NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY AND CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FEBRUARY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 1983 1984 1985 1986 BROOKLYN $381.00 $394.00 $431.00 $469.00 CENTER BROOKLYN $378.00 $397.00 $432.00 $462.00 PARK i CRYSTAL $404.00 $434.00 $464.00 $485.00 MINNEAPOLIS- $433.00 $456.00 $472.00 $509.00 NORTH OF LAKE STREET MINNEAPOLIS $465.00 $488.00 $508.00 $531.00 SOUTH OF LAKE STREET MINNEAPOLIS- $463.00 $481.00 $508.00 $519.00 UNIVERSITY AREA NEW HOPE $401.00 $422.00 $458.00 $477.00 OSSEO $365.00 $374.00 $417.00 $437.00 PLYMOUTH $436.00 $456.00 $493.00 $540.00 ROBBINSDALE $422.00 $430.00 $457.00 $477.00 SOURCE: JULY_ 26 1 286_ M_ STAR AND TR THIS INFORMATION IS FROM AN APARTMENT GUIDE SURVEY BASED ON INTERVIEWS WITH 910 BUILDING OWNERS. BECAUSE IT INCLUDES A HIGHER PROPORTION OF NEW BUILDINGS AND LARGE SUBURBAN COMPLEXES THAN THERE ARE IN THE OVER- ALL HOUSING STOCK, THE FINDINGS PROBABLY REFLECT MORE CLOSELY THE RENTS IN THESE BUILDINGS THAN IN OLDER, SMALLER INNER -CITY BUILDINGS. page 32A LOCAL RENT RATES NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY RENT IN DOLLARS 600 500 ....--------- .. ....... .......... - ........ . -- ..._.. .- .................... _ ---- - - - --- - 400----------------- ----------- ----------- --- --------------------- --------- -------- - ------- ----..._. _......_._..- -- ----- -- _-- - - - - -- b m �o 300 ._ ._...._..__._ ........ - - -- ---------- ----- --- . - - - -- _... --- - -_... _ -- _.._.._ . --------------------------------- w N 100 .. _. ___._._..._ ........ ..__ - - -- - ---:.__...... . ......_ .. . __..._.._ .__....- - -- - -- 0 1883 1984 1985 1986 OUTER RING SUBURBS BROOK. PARK OSSEQ PLYMOUTH SOURCE: APARTMENT GUIDE SURVEY LOCAL RENT RATES NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY RENT IN DOLLARS 600 500 ----------- _._._._._._..._...__ ................................... .............................................................. _._._............................................ ....... _ ... ........ _.__ .............. _ ....................... 400 ----- ._._._._..._. -.__.- __._.- .- _._.- ._.- .- .- .- . -._.. _._._..._._._._._._...................... ..... _ ..... _ ... ....... _.- ....... ........................... __._. a 300 ----------------- _ --------------------------- _ --------------------------------------------------- _._.----- ._._.- .- .--- - - - -.- - ._._.- .- .- ._.- ._._._._._.- _._.- . -. -.- - ._._.__-- ._._.- ._._._- _.-.---.__.-...-.-.-_ .- .- .- .- ....._-- .- ._.- .- . -._._. w N f7 200 ------------------------- --------------- -------------- ._..._------ .._._._._. --- ----------------------------------...._._._._._._._._._._..._._._._.__._._.__._._._._._._.__.------.--..v._._._._.__._.-._.-._._..----------------- 00 ...._._._. .._......._._._._..._..._._..._ ............... ............ ..................................... .._._._._............. . ;._._._._._._.............. _ ........................... _ .... _ ............. _ ...................... _..................... 0 83 84 85 86 INNER RING SUBURBS BROOKLYN C --E— CRYSTAL --— NEW HOPE —$— ROBBINSDAL SOURCE; APARTMENT GUIDE SURVEY • 1980 POVERTY STATISTICS SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY PLANNING AREA # OF # OF PERSONS PERSONS # OF PERSONS BELOW POVERTY BELOW BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 65 YEARS 125% OF LEVEL AND OLDER POVERTY - - - -- -- - -- - - -- * NORTHWEST 8,905 722 12,543 HENNEPIN COUNTY * WEST 6,239 1,016 8,862 HENNEPIN COUNTY SOUTH 5,406 664 7,726 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBAN 20,550 2,402 29,131 HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTAL HENNEPIN COUNTY TOTAL 68,573 9,048 94,511 * INCLUDES 1/2 OF PLYMOUTH TOTALS FOR EACH PLANNING AREA • SOURCE: 1980 U.S CENSUS DATA page 33 1980 POVERTY LEVELS HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBS BY PERSONS NORTHWEST HENNEPIN 43.3% 8,905 a .s * WEST HENNEPIN ` 30.4% 0,239 SOUTH HENNEPIN 26.3% 5 • 1/2 OF PLYMOUTH EACH TOTAL SUBURBS: 20,550 SOURCE: 1980 U.S. CENSUS DATA 1980 POVERTY STATISTICS FOR NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY Persons Below % of Persons Persons 65 yrs + Persons At or of Persons Poverty Level in Municipality Below Poverty Level Below 125% of Poverty_ in Municipal Brooklyn Center 1,676 5.4% 103 2,067 6.6% Brooklyn Park 2,572 6.0% 120 3,587 8.3% Champlin 192 2.1% 18 291 3.2% Corcoran 262 6.2% 45 341 8.0% Crystal 748 3.0% 23 1,218 4.88 Dayton 179 4.4% 38 285 7.1% w Golden Valley 488 2.3% 100 610 2.7% u, • Hanover 56 8.8% 7 75 11.8% Hassan 91 5.1% 19 111 6.3% Maple Grove 546 2.7% 13 645 3.1% New Hope 936 4.2% 40 1,474 6.4% Osseo 158 5.9% 47 329 11.1% Plymouth 854 2.8% 64 1,129 3.6% Robbinsdale 533 3.8% 114 902 6.2% Rogers 41 6.3% 3 43 6.6% Total 9,332 4.0% 754 13,107 5.6% SOURCE: Summary Characteristics for Governmental Units and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Census of Population and Housing Bureau of the Census 1980 POVERTY LEVELS * NORTHWEST HENNEPIN BY PERSONS BROOK, CNTR, BROOK. PARK 2572 1676 i NEW HOPE vu w 936 HANOVER 56 m w GOLD, VALLEY HASSAN 91 4 g OSSEO 158 S DAYTON 179 PLYMOUTH 854 CHAMPLIN 192 CRYSTAL ROBBINSDALE CORCORAN 262 748 533 MAPLE GROVE 546 INNER RING OUTER RING * SUBURBAN TOTAL: 9,332 * INCLUDES ALL OF PLYMOUTH SOURCE; 1980 U. S, CENSUS DATA DEIIOGRAPIIIC CHARACTERISTICS OF OLDER HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTS Easily Rouseholder or Do low Poverty! Living Alone Saouse of House holder Living w /O thers Institutions Number 3 60+ Number 1Z + Maher %60+ Number 11 60+ Number 0+ C - - ff2 Area 60+ ropu lntion 60+ Population 60+ Po elation 60+ Population 60+ Population lhilted States 4.6 15,763 1j,.5 Minnesota 7 8,300 12.9% 164,457 25.3 393,932 60.6% 44 # . 22 6.8% 47 5 1 7.3% ► 26. 14 ib 54. 3 1 X 995 Metropolitan Area 21 IS - � .8 � 5 4 7 2 Sf 0 22 11.6% 7. % a .3 t lennryin County 11,202 .Of 39 20 25.2% 79 9591 56.7% 1-0 7.8% 10,244 7.3 Minne apolis City 8,118 11 29,8 1 35.1 %_ 36,433 9.55% 6,02 Z -__ _ . _5,3 7.2$ Northwest Area 985 5. 3 93 t8. 3% 12 12 .4% 1,5 .0% 1, 967 10. Drooklyp Center City 150 5Z4 17.8% 2,297 71.0 263 8.11 9 .1 ik•ookly_n Park Ci - 162 9 .4 O4 23. 1,102 6 3.8% 222 12. it 0 - Champlin C it y 3 5 8. 11 90 21.6a 286 68.6% 1 9.8% 0 C orcoran C1tY 58� 26 5 15. 1 2 73• % 2 4 _10.95_ - 0 - (1-y C 1ty . 54 1.9% 453 _ 1 5-55 2,076 71.2 218 7.5% 16 5.711 Issy Ci ty ` _ 20. 39 1 JS 15 7t. 21 9.95 0 - (;nld n Valley_ City 13 ti.2 - X156`16.1 2,062 265 •2 5 i.t ILi nover Ctt 2 1 0.01 20 .0 15 75.0 1 5.0 0 - ihqsan Town3hl 21 17 .6L 1 12.6% 91 76 1 10.9% 0 w Itip Grove City_ 1 2. 1 63 1 1.1 OS 71. 99 17.5% 0 - Nrw ib .e city - - 81 3.51 42 1 .211 985 42.1% 131 5. 00 3 .211 Os seo City_ 67 1 0.7 .11 17.9 23 37.3 35 5.6% 24 39.211 llo bbinsdale City 158 4 10 23.6 - 2,2 193 5.6% 200 5.8% 1loger•3 City 5 13 .5% 12 3-3% -- - 23 -- _ _ .9% 1 2.9% 0 - Hest Area 1,283 5,158 2'.5% 15,296 .7% i 71 7.2% 1,83 7.6% Ure haven City 7 i. 55 12. 9 74.3% -- _ _5 - 10.2 14 3.2 Excelsior City fig 9.9 172 34. a 241 48.6% 25 5.6% 55 11.15 (k•eenflel City 9 7.6 19 16-54 87 75.7% 9 7.8% 0 Cireensmod City 2 2.1 10 10.6 76 8 .5% 0 - Ib k ins City 192 6 .5% 8 92 30.1 1,607 54.2% 1 .0% 2 W.7% independe City 2 10.2 2 17.9 177 75.3 1 6.8% 0 -- tong lake City 7 3.7 33 1717.3% 10 53.9% 10 5.25 - -. _ 5 23.6% Loretto C ity 1 0 21.7% 13 28 .3% 0 .911 5 10.9% 0 -- 1t!Q Plai City 15 45 19.1 121 51. 3.4% 62 2 .3% Ho dialne Lake City 0 7 11.9 45 7F 7 11 0 11.d na City 9 - - 4 5� 19 19.11 137 e. 8% 23 11.6% 0 - Ninnetonka Cit 06 2.25 539 14.0% 2,515 65.4% 346 9.0% 446 11.6 filnn - tonka Beach City 0 14 20.9E -50- 74 .6% 3 4.5% 0 Ntnnetrlat City 32 10.7 2 7. 241 On q 14 11.4% 0 - Mond city 9.2E 2 44 25 17 6 5.45 83 8.8% 0 - Orono City 47 5.0E 1 17.5% 595 7 71 % 0 -- PI mouth City .9 411 E� % 26 15-31 1,241 70.9% 151 .6% 91 5.2% Flockford City 0 .5% 7 8% 3 1 % 0 St. Anth C ity 22 =F -::3 1 147 15-11 763 78. 6.5% 0 - St. Do nifaclus City 22 20 .6E 26 24.311 77 72.0% _ 317 0 -- St. Ea►!s Park City 482 5.8 1,971 2 3. % 5,142 1.8% 95 .0% 70 e. 511 Shoremood C if .01 52 12.2 39 79• 4 .0% 0 -_ SJrrin Ci 15.2% 74 20.8 1h8 - TI1. % i7 5 11 .Tf To�k &-ly City 13 7 , g 32 19 .E 119 72. 1 1 4 0.5% 0 MLlnas City - _ 51 279 3 5.5 5 5 .7 55 1 6 .01% Woodland City .3% 17 23.6 b 3.9% 9 - October, 1985 9881 'OZ d39W31d3S :aInH:�S SNOSa:�d - ]d101 099 J.T1_1t/n N30-100 1901 D V l9 >i H`dd N A A00H8.�I��:. . ............ . .. 1991 3dOH MAN Z9l HDH10 °' E £; E 89zz U31N30 NJI 6991 HBIN3O N0880HJL iv a3A838 SNO883d NVHDOdd Aii(iovivqoo snldHns SURPLUS COMMODITY PROGRAM PERSONS SERVED AT C.,R.O.S.S. BROOKLYN PARK 1229 A OSSEO 560 HAMEL 49 ROGERS 126 DAYTON 196 CHAMPLI N 406 MAPLE GROVE 375 TOTAL PERSONS SERVED. 2,992 SEPTEMBER 20, 1986 HENNEPIN COUNTY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM JANUARY 1 - OCTOBER 31, 1986 • Persons % of Total Program % of Total Program Served Persons Ser Expenses Expenses Brooklyn Center 29 6.2% $2,723.00 7.4% Brooklyn Park 32 6.8% $2,919.00 7.9% Champlin 16 3.4% $1,449.00 3.9% Crystal 67 14.3% $5,244.00 14.2% Golden Valley 29 6.2% $3,213.00 8.7% Maple Grove 11 2.3% $1,385.00 3.7% New Hope 70 15.0% $6,649.00 18.0% Osseo 7 1.5% $ 972.00 2.6% Plymouth 93 20.0% $6,863.00 19.9% Robbinsdale 24 5.1% $1,623.00 4.3% Other 90 19.2% $3,834.00 10.4% • Total 468 100.0% $36,874.00 100.0% page 38 • 0 W EMERGENCY SERVICES USAGE NORTHWEST SUBURBS BY HOUSEHOLDS CRYSTAL 67 GOLDEN VALLEY 29 CHAMPUN 16 MAPLE GROVE 11 € NU BROOKLYN PARK 32 NEW HOPE 70 � BROGKLYN CfJTR 29 OD b OSSEO 7 OTHER 90 PLYMOUTH 93 ROB8INSDALE 24 TOTAL H'SHOLDS SERVED: 468 JANUARY 1 - OCTOBER 31, 1988 0 EMERGENCY SERVICE EXPENSES NORTHWEST SUBURBS BY DOLLARS CRYSTAL 5244 .•° R��k: PLYMOUTH 6863 i o � d OTHER 3834 LQ OD -= OSSEO 972 MAPLE GROVE 1385 GOLDEN VALLEY 3213 vHAMPLIN 1449 BROOKLYN PARK 2919 R03BINSDALE 1623 BROOKLYN CNTR 2723 TOTAL EXPENSES: $36,874.00 JANUARY 1 — OCTOBER 31, 1988 NORTHWEST HENNEPIN ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UTILIZATION DATA NUMBER OF GRANTS APPROVED Brooklyn Center 330 441 429 Brooklyn Park 458 614 580 Champlin 111 143 121 Corcoran 19 32 33 Crystal 254 352 293 Dayton 42 46 53 Golden Valley 94 127 133 Hassan UK 0 14 Maple Grove 106 136 120 New Hope 136 197 200 Osseo 95 112 73 Plymouth 16 28 43 • Robbinsdale 177 203 201 Rogers 44 47 20 Total 19882 2,478 2,313 • page 39 NORTHWEST AREA PROGRAM STATISTICS Thru 02/28/86 The Northwest Energy Assistance office has taken 48% of the • applications in rural and suburban Hennepin County. Staff in the Northwest office are Cindy -Area Program Coordinator; Ellie -Area Assistant Coordinator; Joanne -Phone Room Supervisor; Dian - Applications Verifier; Sherri - Intake Worker. The following dollar amounts spent per city are figured on an average grant amount for this years program of $365.00. CITY #OF APPS. GRANTS X $365 DENIALS BROOKLYN CENTER 292 $106,580 9 BROOKLYN PARK 422 $154,030 25 CHAMPLIN 70 $ 25,550 1 CRYSTAL 178 $ 64,970 9 DAYTON 18 $ 6,570 1 GOLDEN VALLEY 94 $ 34,310 1 MAPLE GROVE 73 $ 26,645 7 NEW HOPE 130 $ 47 7 • OSSEO 55 $ 20,075 3 PLYMOUTH 111* $ 40,515* 12* ROBBINSDALE 125 $ 45 7 ROGERS 15 $ 5,475 2 ST. ANTHONY, 21 $ 7,665 0 1604* $585,460* 84* * The city of Plymouth is served by both the West and Northwest Energy Assistance offices. Figures listed above for Plymouth are a combined total from both area offices. page 40 • GRANT AMOUNTS Grant amounts are determined by household size, kind of fuel used and income. The grants range in amounts for natural gas from $125.00 to $530.00. For oil and ro ane the range was P P $185.00 to $725.00. In the previous year, the range for natural gas was $200.00 to $605.00, and for fuel oil and propane the grants were from $270.00 to $810.00. Residents with eligible incomes whose heat was included in the rent were eligible for assistance based on a percentage of the monthly rent paid. Grants were generally made to the utilities and credited to the applicants account. A percentage of cases were direct payments made to the client. This was cone when a household's heat was included in the rent or when a household was reimbursed for payments they made. No assistance was provided to those living in subsidized housing where heat was included in tent. The average primary heat grant amount for suburban Hennepin clients was $355.90. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS of PROGRAM APPLICANTS IN NORHTWtST HENNEPIN COUNTY • The number of households assisted: 2,045 • The number of individuals assisted: 6 • Of the 6,419 individuals served, 5,567 (86.7 %) were Caucasian, and 852 (13.3 %) were non - Caucasian. A Approximately 46% of the households were owner occupied, and 54% were renters. 0 18% of all applicants had heads of households over 60 years of age 5 16% of the households contained a handicapped member. 9 5% of the households received General Assistance benefits • 49% of all applicants were single parents 9 42% of the households received AFDC benefits. A hign proportion of households are headed by single parents, primarily women receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It appears that this is a reflection of the current trend know as 'the feminization of poverty'. page 40A ENERGY ASSISTANCE NORTHWEST FUNDS ALLOCATED Dollars in Thousands 1000 800 - ---------- ------------ ----------- - - - 600 - - ----- - --- ----- --- ---- ----- - ------------------------- --------- - -- --------------------- --- ----- --- ------------------------------ - - - ----- ----- ----- ------- ---------- 400 ----- --------------- --------------- - ------- __ _ ____ ------- - --------------------- ------------- - --- ----------- ------- ----- ------------- I ----------- ----------- . - - I ----------- - ----- 200 - -------- ... ------------------------- --- --- - ------- - -- - - - ----------- ---------- ----------- - - -- 0 1984 1985 1986 1984: $855,440 NW ENERGY FUNDS 1985: 871,120 SOURCE; NORTHWEST ENERGY ASSISTANCE DEPT 1986: 1717,841 NW CRISIS DOLLARS AND CONSERVATION REPAIR DOLLARS Dollars in Thousands 120 100 ----- -- - - -- ----- ------- ----- _._- --- -- --- - - -_ _________— _.__----- -- - - -- 60 a o i 0 198a 1885 1986 CRISIS FUNDS + CONSERVATION REPAIR SOURCE: NORTHWEST ENERGY ASSISTANCE DEPT NORTHWLST HENNLPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL Energy Assistance Program 1985 - 1986 MUNICIPALITY_REpO,FjT • City Of: Brooklyn Center THREE YEAR COMPARISON 19851986 1984 -,1985 __1984 Number of Households Applied /Received Assistance: 395/380 462/429 493/441 ENERGY FUNDS Dollar Amount Allocated: $ 134,749 f 158 149,940 CRISIS FUNDS Dollar Amount Allocated: $ 5,407 12,183 21,816 CONSERVATION /REPAIR FUNDS Dollar Amount Allocated: $ 41 339 288 Number of Households Head of Household Over 60 45 69 80 . Number of Single Parent Households: 206 219 N/A Number of Home Owners: 125 174 200 Number of Renters: 270 288 293 Number of Renters on Subsidized Rent: 110 103 84 Number of Renters with Heat Included in Rent: 102 103 N/A Total Energy Assistance dollars allocated to Brooklyn Center during the 1985 -86 program years * 140,197.00. page 40D * NORTHWEST SUBURBS PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASES NUMBER OF CASES 3000 2 5 0 0 L _._.- ._.- ._._._ .. .. ................. _._._._._..._. _ _ _._..._.__._._....._._._._.._.. ..._._.._......._....._._._._.. ............... ... .......... 2000 -._._.__ ---------- --------------------------- ------------- .._.- ._._......... ... ............. ... ............. ............... ... ....... ............ .................... ... ........... ... ......................... b a 1500 .............................._._ ............ ............... ...... .................... .................................................. ..... .... _.._.._._._. ..__._.......................... r 1000 .-._.- ._._._.- .- ._...._.- .- ._. -. -. -_ _ _._.- .- .- .- ._ -. -._ -._._.-._.-_._._.-.-..._.-.-._._.-.-._._._._.-.__.-.-.......-._._.-.__.__.-._.-.-._._.-._._.-.__.-.-.-._.__._.-.__.-._._.-.__.-_...._.-.-.-._.-.-._. _._.- .- ._.- ._._.- .- ._.- ._._. -._ 500 -------------------------------- --------------- --------------------------- .--------------------------------- ----- ----------------------- _.._ _._ _._..__._.._._ ........ ....... ..... 0 1981 1982 1983 1984. 1985 AFDC CASES -- GA CASES --*— MA CASES FOOD STAMP SOURCE; NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL '► INCLUDES CITY OF PLYMOUTH BROOKLYN CENTER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE CASES NUMBER OF CASES 600 500 - - - --------------------- - --------- - ------------- 400 ---- ----- --- --- --- - 300 - - - - - ------------------------------ --------- - ----------- - ----------------------- 200 ------------- - ---- - --------- 100 -------------------- ------------- 0 1 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 AFDC CASES --- GA CASES MA CASES E FOOD STAMP SOURCE; NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL BROOKLYN CENTER 1985 PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CASES FOOD STAMP CASES 404 W AFDC CASES GENERAL ASSISTANC 383 � 76 f MEDICAL ASSISTANCE 240 TOTAL CASES: 1,103 SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL 1985 AFDC CASES SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY NORTHWEST HENNEPIN 57.4% 1,944 CASES a f j I.i I f # SOUTH HENNEPIN 20.8% WEST HENNEPIN 704 CASES 21.8% 730 CASES TOTAL SUBURBAN CASES: 3,378 SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN (AFDC) CASES BY MUNICIPALITY NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 BROOKLYN 456 350 455 395 383 CENTER BROOKLYN 775 652 711 699 699 PARK CHAMPLIN 91 71 94 90 103 CORCORAN 5 5 3 10 3 CRYSTAL 177 156 158 137 143 DAYTON 12 15 22 17 14 GOLDEN 44 43 50 38 51 • VALLEY HANOVER 0 0 0 0 0 HASSAN 0 2 1 4 2 MAPLE 85 67 82 62 77 GROVE NEW 277 214 269 250 250 HOPE OSSEO 68 49 48 29 25 PLYMOUTH 153 117 135 122 119 ROBBINSDALE 93 69 80 88 70 ROGERS 7 5 6 9 5 TOTAL 2,243 1,815 2,114 1,950 1,944 SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL page 44A GENERAL ASSISTANCE CASES 1985 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBS NORTHWEST SUBURBS 49.9% 471 CASES N � J' 7� a� souTH sueuaes 19.4% wesT suauaes 183 CASES so.en 289 CASES TOTAL SUBURBS: 943 CASES SOURCE. NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL • GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CASES BY MUNICIPALITY NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- BROOKLYN 15 16 68 93 76 CENTER BROOKLYN 18 19 94 160 128 PARK CHAMPLIN 3 2 13 17 14 CORCORAN 0 1 3 1 2 CRYSTAL 5 8 36 40 50 DAYTON 0 2 2 5 2 GOLDEN 13 22 28 32 24 VALLEY • HANOVER 0 0 0 0 0 HASSAN 0 0 1 0 0 MAPLE 1 0 12 16 13 GROVE NEW 4 6 32 57 45 HOPE OSSEO 1 1 4 13 7 PLYMOUTH 70 62 60 83 83 ROBBINSDALE 8 5 20 33 27 ROGERS 1 1 0 1 0 TOTAL 139 145 373 551 471 • SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL page 45A 0 0 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE CASES 1985 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBS NORTHWEST HENNEPIN 44.]% 2,366 CASES 11 i g. Ell WEST HENNEPIN SOUTH HENNEPIN 31.9% : 23.4% 1 6 CASES 1,240 CASES TOTAL: 5,292 CASES SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL • MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CASES BY MUNICIPALITY NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 BROOKLYN 126 159 208 221 240 CENTER BROOKLYN 99 140 197 242 254 PARK CHAMPLIN 16 18 20 19 33 CORCORAN 3 4 8 12 10 CRYSTAL 157 185 218 222 236 DAYTON 6 5 13 19 15 GOLDEN 331 289 415 422 341 VALLEY • HANOVER 0 0 0 1 1 HASSAN 0 0 4 8 3 MAPLE 16 21 28 27 43 GROVE NEW 249 294 551 572 584 HOPE OSSEO 147 139 184 183 176 PLYMOUTH 91 127 154 148 150 ROBBINSDALE 188 197 269 280 276 ROGERS 6 6 4 6 4 TOTAL 1 1,584 2,273 2,382 2,366 SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL page 4 6A, 1985 FOOD STAMP CASES SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY NORTHWEST HENNEPIN 54.8% 2,143 CASES a m m SOUTH HENNEPIN WEST HENNEPIN 787 CASES 25.0 978 CASES TOTAL CASES: 3,908 SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL FOOD STAMP PROGRAM CASES BY MUNICIPALITY NORTHWEST HENNEPIN COUNTY --- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 BROOKLYN 424 475 545 447 404 CENTER BROOKLYN 784 768 798 776 721 PARK CHAMPLIN 81 81 103 69 98 CORCORAN 7 10 12 14 4 CRYSTAL 162 206 211 177 164 DAYTON 19 24 28 27 16 GOLDEN 64 92 115 97 107 VALLEY HANOVER 0 O 0 0 1 HASSAN 2 3 6 6 1 MAPLE 67 75 68 64 62 GROVE NEW 248 273 308 291 274 HOPE OSSEO 61 63 47 47 34 PLYMOUTH 167 180 202 173 144 ROBBINSDALE 114 126 120 130 113 ROGERS 7 5 6 8 0 TOTAL 2,207 2,381 2,569 2,346 2,143 i SOURCE: NORTHWEST HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL page 47A PROCLAMATION V WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS: PARTNERS WITH GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY DAY WHEREAS, women -owned businesses are one of the fastest growing segments of the small business community and represent a great economic resource; and WHEREAS, in the State of Minnesota there are currently more than 75,000 women business owners eneratin more than g g 453 $ million dollars in annual receipts; and WHEREAS, our state government annually buys over $530,000 dollars worth of goods and services from private vendors and can best be assured of getting the best value for its procurement dollar in a competitive market open to all; and WHEREAS, women -owned businesses have not had a share of state government business proportionate to their growing presence in the economy; and WHEREAS, the growth of women -owned businesses contributes significantly to the creation of jobs; I, Dean A. Nyquist, Mayor of the City of Brooklyn Center, hereby express my support of the efforts by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Association of Women Business Owners to open the doors of government business opportunity more widely to the products and services of women -owned businesses and acknowledge the capabilites and competitiveness of women -owned businesses by offering a unique marketing opportunity for women business owners throughout the country to market their wares to a wide variety of government and corporate customers in one place at one time, thus reducing the costs of marketing for women's small businesses and alerting both corporate and government buyers and women sellers to their mutual interests to increase potential sales. In recognition of this event... MEGAMARKETPLACE WEST ... which I expect will bring considerable benefits to the State of Minnesota and the women business owners in it, I declare May 27, 1987 to be WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS: PARTNERS WITH GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY DAY Date Mayor Seal Attest Clerk Member introduced the following resolution and moved 9� its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. r Al RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -21, EARLE BROWN FARM STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE III STREETSCAPE LIGHTING CONTRACT 1986 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Earle Brown Farm Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase III Streetscape Lighting, Improvement Project No. 1986 -21, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and the Director of Public Works, on the 26th day of February, 1987. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount McNerney Industries $ 233,313.00 Killmer Electric Company, Inc. 242,401.00 Egan -McKay Electric 245,263.00 Collins Electric 245,566.00 Electric Service Company 268,961.00 AND, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City that the bid submitted by McNerney Industries, Inc., does not comply with the Specifications because the bid was not accompanied by the specified bid security; and WHEREAS, the bid submitted by Killmer Electric Company, Inc. of 7901 rooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bid which omplies with the Specifications: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The bid submitted by McNerney Industries, Inc. of 633 Upland Avenue, Elk River, Minnesota 55330 is hereby rejected on the basis of failure to comply with the bid security requirements of the Specifications. 2. The bid submitted b Killmer Electric Company, Inc. 's e y P y, i h declared to be the w to est bid b a re y p le contractor which complies with the requirements of the Specifications. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $242,401.00 with Killmer Electric Company, Inc. of 7901 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1986 -21, Contract 1986 -R according to the Plans and Specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.. i 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder (i.e. Egan -McKay Electric) shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -21 is hereby amended from $347,145.08 to $265,571.00 according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Shingle Creek Parkway Lighting $ 83,848.00 $ 63,754.13 Other Lighting 237.794.93 178,646.87 Subtotal $ 321,642.93 $ 242,401.00 Technical Services Consultant 12,649.29 18,320.00 City 6,420.00 0.00 'Administration 3,216.43 2,425.00 Legal 3.216.43 2.425.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 347,145.08 $ 265,571.00 2. The estimated costs to be financed as follows: As Approved As Bid MSA Accounts 2600 (Expendable) 2611 (Restricted Reserve) ($ 90,492.47) ($ 69,848.09) 2613 (State Approved Projects) 90,492.47 67,848.09 Capital Project Fund (Division _) General Fund (Division _) H.R.A. 347.145.08 265.571.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 347,145.08 $ 265,571.00 3. The City expects to be reimbursed by Municipal State Aid to the extent of $69,848.09. 4. Any difference that arises between the reimbursement from Municipal State Aid and the contribution by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to finance the project remains in the City State Aid Fund and may, at the Council's discretion, be used for projects or matching funds on State Aid qualified streets. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. v Member introduced the following esolution and moved g its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. .. %t RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1986 -21, EARLE BROWN FARM STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, PHASE III, STREETSCAPE LIGHTING, ' CONTRACT 1986 -R WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Earle Brown Farm Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase III, Streetscape Lighting, Improvement Project No. 1986 -21, bids were received, opened, and tabulated b the Ci Clerk Y Y and Engineer, on the 26th day of Februa Said bids w e 1 er as follows: rY , Bidder Bid Amount ,� C,C McNerney Indus ties 233 Killmer Electric Company, Inc. 242,401.0 Egan -McKay Electric 245,263.00 Collins Electric 245,566.00 Electric Service Company 268 961 00 P Y , AND, WHEREAS, the bid submitted by McNerney Industries, Inc. is the lowest responsible bid which complies with the Specifications with the following exception, to wit: Along with its bid proposal, McNerney Industries, Inc. submitted a bid bond which, on its face, indicated that the amount of the bond is "... five percent of the amount of the bid, not to exceed $10,000 ... ", whereas, the Specifications for the project require that bid security be provided in the amount of five i e percent of the bid, thereby requiring a bid security of $11,665.65 based on the bid submitted by McNerney: AND, WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the failure by McNerney Industries, Inc. to submit a full bond does not give the low bidder an advantage over other bidders: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. Subject to the submittal, by McNerney Industries of bid security meeting the full requirements of the specifications, and delivery of said bid security to the City Clerk at or before 4 :30 p.m., local time on March 25, 1987, said irregularity is hereby waived, and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $233,313.00 with McNerney Industries, Inc. of Elk River, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1986 -21 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. In the event McNerney Industries fails to provide bid security meeting the full requirements of the specifications and deliver said bid security to the City Clerk at or before 4:30 p.m., local time on March 25, 1987, the bid submitted by Killmer Electric Company, Inc. is hereby declared to be the lowest bid by a responsible contractor which complies with the requirements of the Specifications. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1986 -21 is hereby amended from $347,145.08 to $256,026.39 according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Shingle Creek Parkway Lighting $ 83,848.00 $ 61,363.89 Other Lighting 237.794.93 171.949.11 Subtotal $ 321,642.93 $ 233,313.00 Technical Services Consultant $ 12,649.29 $ 18,047.39 City 6,420.00 0.00 Administration 3,216.43 2,333.00 Legal 3.216.43 2.333.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 347,145.08 $ 256,026.39 2. The estimated costs to be financed as follows: As Approved As Bid MSA Accounts 2600 (Expendable) 2611 (Restricted Reserve) ($ 90,492.47) ($ 67,377.76) 2613 (State Approved Projects) 90,492.47 67,377.76 Capital Project Fund (Division _) General Fund (Division _) H.R.A. 347.145.08 256.026.39 TOTAL REVENUE $ 347,145.08 $ 256,026.39 3. The City expects to be reimbursed by Municipal State Aid to the extent of $67,337.76. 4. Any difference that arises between the reimbursement from Municipal State Aid and the contribution by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to finance the project remains in the City State Aid Fund and may, at the Council's discretion, be used for projects or matching funds on State Aid qualified streets. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BRO OKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: March 19, 1987 ` r .f RE: Earle Brown Farm Streetscape, Phase III Improvement Project No. 1986 -21 Contract 1986 -R Attached is a resolution "Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1986 -21, Earle Brown Farm Streetscape Improvement Project, Phase III, Streetscape Lighting, Contract 1986 -R In my memorandum dated March 5, 1987 I recommended rejection of the proposal of McNerney Industries, Inc., the apparent low bidder, because the bid was not accompanied by the specified bid security. A copy of that memorandum is attached. In the past 2 weeks the matter has been reviewed with the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney (see attached letter). We have checked the experience references submitted by McNerney Industries and determined that the bidder meets the experience requirements contained in the Specification. It is still recommended that the bid of McNerney Industries, Inc. be rejected. Based on our additional investigations, review and analysis, we again recommend that the City Council reject the bid of McNerney Industries, Inc. based on the following considerations: 1. The amount of bid security submitted by McNerney is less than the amount required by the Specifications. 2. We have been able to determine (from my conversations with McNerney and with a representative of his bonding company) that McNerney know the bid bond would not comply to the Specifications, that they knew that there were alternative remedies to correct this defect (for example: McNerney could have supulggented the bid bond with a certified check for the additions 1,665.65), yet submitted his bid with that defect. - It is our opinion that, at best, this demonstrates a cavalier attitude by this bidder. 3. The bidder did not contact the Engineer prior to the bid to determine whether deficient bid security was acceptable. • �74 e S"a 7&ace ea# �. March 19, 1987 Page 2 4. The bidder's bonding company had established a limit on the size contract it would secure at the time of the bid opening, 11:00 a.m., February 26, 1987. That limit was 86% of the bid. Accordingly, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Alternate Resolution No. 1, a resolution, a resolution that rejects the bid of McNerney Industries, Inc. on the basis of failure to comply with the bid security requirements of the Specifications and awards the contract to Killmer Electric Company, Inc. in the amount of $242,401. In his opinion, our City Attorney also states that the City Council may choose to waive this defect provided the Council finds ".. that failure to submit a full bond does not give the low bidder an advantage over other bidders ". "Alternate Resolution No. 2 is provided for consideration by the City Council if the Council reaches this determination. As recommended by the City Attorney, this resolution would require the bidder to provide the additional bid security by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25th. Failure to comply with this requirement would result in award of the contract to the second low bidder. Res ectfully submitted, Approved for submittal, I i OJUg �,/ eltapo--J .R. Spurer S ' a Y PP City Engineer Director of Public Works HRS : j n I LeFevere Lef 1er Kennedy O'Brien & Drawz A Professional Association 2000 First Bank Place West March 19, 1987 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Mr. Sy Knapp Clayton L. LeFevere Public Works Director Herbert P. Lefler City of Brooklyn Center J. Dennis O'Brien 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway John E. Drawz Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 David J. Kennedy John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Dear Sy: Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III You have asked our opinion regarding whether the James J. Thomson, Jr. city may reject a public improvement bid because the Thomas Galt Dayle Nolan bidder failed to submit a bid bond in the amount required Brian F. Rice by the specifications. As we understand the facts, the John G. Kressel city received sealed bids on February 26, 1987, for Lorraine S. Clugg construction of the Earle Brown Farm Streetsca a Improve- Qm M. Strommen p p H.Batty ment Project, Phase III Streetscape Lighting, improvement P.Jordan project No. 1986 -21. Five bids were received, ranging in Kurt J. Erickson rice from $233 William R. Skallerud p , 313 to $268,961. Among the bid specifi- Rodney D. Anderson cations was a requirement that a bid bond be submitted in Corrine A. Heine an amount equal to five percent of the bid. The low David D. Beaudoin bidder's bond was for $10,000 rather than the $11,666 Paul E. Rasmussen Steven M. Tallen required for compliance with the specifications. Based upon these facts and a review of relevant statutes and case law, our opinion regarding this matter is as follows. Minnesota law requires that public contracts subject to bidding requirements be awarded to the lowest respon- sible bidder whose bid does not materially vary from the specifications. Whether a variance from the specifica- tions is material depends upon whether it gives one bidder "a substantial advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other bidders." Coller v. City of St. Paul 26 NW2d 835, 840 (Minn. 1947). In Foley Bros., Inca v. Marshall 123 NW2d 387 (Minn. 1963), a case involving irregularity in the procedural aspects of a bid, the court held that a determining issue is whether there is an advantage to one bidder and disadvantage to other bidders as a result ult of the variance. In light of the above and other Minnesota court decisions, it is our opinion that the city council may waive the defect if it chooses. The waiver would be on the grounds that failure to submit a full bond does not give the low bidder an advantage over other bidders. Mr Sy Knapp March 19, 1987 Page 2 However, if the council desires to award the contract to the low bidder, it should probably condition the City's acceptance of the bid on receipt of a bid bond in the full amount within 24 to 48 hours following council action. The obvious advantage of this approach is to enable the city to accept a bid which is approximately $9,000 lower than the next lowest bid. This is con- sistent with an important goal of the public bidding process of allowing the public to obtain goods and services at the lowest cost. We also believe that the city would be upheld if it chose to reject the low bid because it failed to meet specifications. Although the majority of Minnesota cases regarding compliance with specifications have related to price, quality, quantity or other matters which are said to pertain to the substance of the contract, the court indicated in Foley that even procedural matters can result in a material variance from specifications. There is reason to believe if a procedural irregularity resulted in an advantage being enjoyed by one bidder at the expense of others or had the potential of undermining the public bidding process, the court would uphold a rejection of the bid. Determining whether variances are material are "administrative acts of discretion" on the part of the city council which will be overturned by a court only "if done illegally, arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably." Bud Johnson Construction Co., Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Commission 272 NW2d 31, 33 (Minn. 1978) . The principal purpose of a bid bond is to ensure formation of a contract after awarding the bid and to compensate the city for lost time and expenses if the successful bidder fails to enter into a contract. A lower bond not only decreases the protection afforded the city but may also increase the likelihood that no con- tract will be executed because it lowers the bidder's cost of walking away from the deal. A low bond offers a form of insurance for a bidder who submits a bid which he or she later believes was too low or who decides to pursue other opportunities offering a greater return. This may be an advantage to the bidder submitting the deficient bond and, conversely, place other bidders at a competitive disadvantage. It is also conceivable that a low bid bond could be a part of a collusive scheme with another bidder. A bidder could submit a low bid bond and await the bid opening. If the collusive bidders rank lowest and next lowest in the bids, the low bidder could refuse to accept the award and throw the contract to the collusive bidder. The cost of doing so would be the amount of the forfeited bond, but if the spread between the bids is sufficient to Mr Sy Knapp March 19, 1987 Page 3 cover the bond, there may be a financial incentive to do SO. We are aware of no evidence that this or any other illegal action has taken place in this instance. How - ever, these are among the problems which can occur and which the bidding laws are designed to prevent. There may also be strong policy arguments against waiving the bid. We understand that the city has con- sistently required full compliance with bid specifi- cations, including purely procedural matters. This has included rejecting bids submitted only moments after the close of bids and before any other bids were opened. Refusing to waive a deficient bond would be consistent with this policy and would avoid establishing a precedent which the city may later regret. Adherence to a strict policy also avoids having to draw arbitrary lines regarding how large a variance is material. In this instance, the deficiency in the bond was $1,600. What if the bond had been $2,500 or $5,000 short? The simplest line to draw and the one which is clearest to all bidders is the one established in the specifications. Requiring full compliance also limits the need for the city to delve into the motives of bidders. Intent is 0 generally a difficult question to determine and often such decisions may only be made subjectively. In conclusion, we believe that the city council is free to exercise reasonable discretion with regard to this matter with a substantial likelihood that its decision would be upheld upon review by a court. Sincerely, Ronald H. Batty RHBirsr CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: March 5, 1987 RE: Earle Brown Farm Streetscape, Phase III Improvement Improvement Project No. 1986 -21 Contract 1986 -R I have recommended that the City Council reject the proposal of McNerney Industries, Inc., the apparent low bidder, because the bid was not accompanied by the specified bid security. Bid security is important because it represents the "credit line" or bonding capacity of a contractor. As I was preparing the resolutions for accepting the bid I noticed that the bid of McNerney Industries Company did not have the correct bid security. The bond company, Transamerica Premier Insurance Company, had limited the bid bond to "Five Percent (5 %) of bid amount not exceed Ten Thousand and 00 /100th ($10,000) ". The $10,000 meant that the bonding company had approved a credit line of $200,000 for this project for McNerney Industries, Inc. The proposal was short bid security. The difference between the required security and the security that was furnished was $1,665.65. The bidder did not make up that difference with other certified funds in favor of the City. The City has the authority under the contract to waive all irregularities. However, the bid represents the ability of the contractor at 11:00 a.m., February 26th, 1987. At that time, the contractor could not meet specification requirements. It would be unfair to other contractors to allow a modification of their proposal after the designated time sealed bids would be received. A contractor's ability to furnish proper bid security is important. When I talked to McNerney Industries' bonding agent, Ronald Risdon, I was advised that McNerney Industries realized that their proposal was not covered by proper security because McNerney Industries had asked to have their bid bond increased. The bid bond could not be increased without the submittal and review of a formal application. While approval was generally not a problem, it was certainly not guaranteed. Naw Amp March 5, 1987 Page 2 I believe the limited bonding capacity is a problem and therefore it is my recommendation that the bid submitted by McNerney Industries, Inc. of 633 Upland Avenue, Elk River, Minnesota 55330 be rejected on the basis that it does not comply with the specifications because the bid was not accompanied by the specified bid security. I would therefor defer to the recommendation of Westwood Planning and Engineering on whether the second low bidder was qualified and could be recommended for award. *efull submitted, AppSy Director of Public Works HRS : j n Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -06, DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM, CONTRACT 1987 -D WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1987 -06, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 12th day of March, 1987. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount NORTH WOOD COMPANY $ 61,152.50 GORECKI & COMPANY 63,675.00 WHEREAS, it appears the North Wood Company of Coon Rapids, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $61,152.50 with North Wood Company of Coon Rapids, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1987 -06 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption o f the foregoing resolution was duly seconded b P g g Y y member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 i TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: March 18, 1987 RE: Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program Improvement Project No. 1987 -06 Contract 1987 -D Attached is a resolution accepting bid and awarding contract for the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program. There were 2 bidders. North Wood Company of Coon Rapids, Minnesota was the lowest bidder. North Wood Company satisfactorily completed Brooklyn Center's 1983 Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program and is known by City staff. In evaluating the company's references we have concluded that North Wood Company is a responsible bidder and is recommended for award. These bids were reasonably close to the Engineer's Estimate of $59,980, which was based on the bid from the 1986 program. The low bid reflects a 2 percent increase in the bid cost of the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, a "Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1987 -06, the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Program, Contract 1987 -D ". Res ectfully submitted, Ap roved for submittal, H.R. Spur ier Sy r p City Engineer Director of Public Works HRS : j "74C SoMCctici rg No a •• l FABYANSKE, SVOBODA, WESTRA, HOLPER & DAVIS A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION M. T. FABYANSKE 1000 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE CENTER DEAN B.THOMSON GERALD L. SVOSOOA 400 NORTH ROBERT STREET GARY C. EIOSON MARK W. WESTRA SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 KEVIN V. ELLIS RICHARD O. HOLPER TELEPHONE 61 2 - 228 -0118 VINCENT W. KING ROBERT L. DAVIS TELECOPIER 612- 228 -0734 ROBS L. OLSON MARK C. PETERSON KYLE E. HART JEREMIAH J. KEARNEY IISO INTERNATIONAL CENTRE a GARY F. ALBRECHT ROBERT J.HUBER 920 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH STEVEN W. MEYER JAMES F.CHRISTOFFEL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 DAVID D. HAMMARGREN SCOTT LLOYD ANDERSON TELEPHONE 612- 336 -0113 JOHN R. MLOONALD THOMAS L. BIRO TELECOPIER 612- 338 -3867 JUDITH E. KROW CHRISTOPHER A. ELLIOTT HOLLY A. RATHS MARY M. BIERKAMP March 23, 1987 KAREN M. EDWARDS REPLY TO, St. Paul BY MESSENGER Mr. Jerry Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: As I explained to ou in Friday's telephone y y ph one conversation, my firm represents Northdale Construction Co., Inc. We believe there is a serious mathematical miscalculation in the proposal of the apparent low bidder, 0 and P Contracting, for the Brookdale Watermain Improvement Project. 0 and P's proposal reflects a price of $1,200 per unit for the removal and replacement of chain link fence, but the total extension price listed is only $1,560. Obviously, an error has been made. The Instructions to Bidders on this project provided by Brooklyn Center state in paragraph 10.B.: "The bid prices indicated on the Proposal p 1 shall be in writin g and in figures, and in case g of conflicts, the former shall apply. " 0 and P's proposal reflects a unit price for the fence of $1,200, both in writing and in figures. The Instructions further state in paragraph 15.D.: "A bid proposal will be disqualified because of errors in computation which cannot be resolved by mathematical correction without resorting to information not contained in the bids.' 0 and P's mathematical error was purportedly corrected by the Project Engineer, but to do so he clearly ly relied on information not contained in the bid. It is well established in Minnesota that a bid must be "responsive" before it can even be considered by a public authority. A bid is "responsive" if it substantially complies Mr. Jerry Splinter - March 23, 1987 • Page Two with the requirements of the bid documents. The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly held that bids on a public project must be responsive. See, for example, Telephone Associates, Inc. v. St. Louis County Board 364 N.W.2d 378 (Minn. 1985); Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Marshall 266 Minn. 259, 123 N.W.2d 387 (1963); Coller v. City of St. Paul 223 Minn. 376, 26 N.W.2d 835 (1947) . A bid is non- responsive if it fails to substantially comply with the requirements of the bid documents. See, Nielsen v. City of St. Paul 252 Minn. 12, 88 N.W.2d 853 (1958). Beyond this, to be considered for award, a bid must be responsive in all material respects. A deviation or variance is material if it affects price, quality, quantity, time or manner of performance or "other things that go into the actual determination of the amount of bid." See Foley Brothers, supra A bid that is materially non - responsive must be rejected by a public contracting authority. Coller v. City of St. Paul, supra The award of a contract to a materially non - responsive bidder violates competitive bidding requirements and public officials "have no authority to waive defects which affect or destroy competitive bidding." Telephone Associates, Inc. v. St. Louis County Board, at 382. 0 and P's bid is materially non - responsive in that the mathematical error obviously reflects a material variation in price. To now contend that the error is so clear as to warrant unilateral correction by the Engineer is absurd. Suppose the tables were turned and 0 and P, wishing to get out of its bid, decided to reaffirm the $1,200 unit price? The City would have no choice but to honor 0 and P's claim. As you can see from this analysis, the attempted correction of 0 and P's bid allows 0 and P "two bites at the apple*: If it wants the contract, it could contend the unit price was erroneous; if it doesn't want the contract, it could simply stick to the unit price it quoted and insist on "correction" of the "erroneous" extension. Please note we do not intend to cast aspersion on 0 and P's motives, but it is precisely situations of this type -- which create the opportunity for collusion -- which the law in Minnesota condemns. Despite your refusal to provide me with the name of Brooklyn Center's legal counsel, I tracked down Charles Lefevere on my own and discussed the situation with him. I have provided him with a copy of this correspondence. He is aware, as you should be, that if Brooklyn Center chooses to award the contract to 0 and P, we will have no choice but to take the necessary Mr. Jerry Splinter - March 23, 1987 Page Three steps, based on the legal propositions which I have asserted, to secure a temporary injunction on behalf of our client. Once again, I would appreciate an opportunity to speak to the Mayor and the Council on this situation at Monday night's meeting. urs very truly, /ef Appelquist 0 JCA: dlh cc: Thomas Schany Charles Lefevere P.S. I took note of your comments during our conversation regarding Northdale's capabilities and workmanship: 1) We will keep the City's attitude toward Northdale in mind with respect to observation of Monday night's meeting and the legal requirement for fairness and openness in the bidding process; 2) I sincerely hope you are not publishing the types of statements you made to me to third parties, because such statements constitute slander per 2e. q e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1987 -03, BROOKDALE 16" WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT. LIONS PARK TO COUNTY ROAD 10 CONTRACT 1987 -E WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1987 -03, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 19th day of March, 1987. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount 0 & P Contracting $ 274,250.88 Northdale Construction Company 313,971.50 Shafer Contracting Company 314,703.25 Lametti & Sons 334,000.00 WHEREAS, it appears the 0 & P Contracting, Inc. of Champlin, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder with the following notation, to wit: On Bid Item No. 31, i.e. "Remove and Replace Chain Link Fence (Highway 100)" said bidder showed on his proposal a unit price of $1,200.00 per linear foot, which when multiplied by the estimated quantity of 130 linear feet would result in an extended total of $156,000.00 rather than the $1,560.00 total shown on the proposal. On a separate statement, submitted on the day following the bid opening, said bidder certifies that the $1,200.00 per linear foot unit price is in error and that the intent of his proposal is to do said work at the unit price of $12.00 per linear foot as indicated by his total bid of $1,560.00 for this item. AND, WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that the correct total amount of the bid submitted by 0 & P Contracting is $274,250.88, and that allowing said bidder to correct said error does not give the low bidder an advantage over other bidders; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center does not have a segment of required easement for the watermain: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. This award of contract is subject to receipt of proper easement from Federated Department Stores for the alignment between Trunk Highway 100 and County Road 10. 2. The above -noted irregularity is hereby waived and the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $274,260.88 with 0 & P Contracting, Inc. of Champlin, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1987 -03 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1987-03 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $ 350,600.00 $ 274,250.88 Technical Services (9%) 31,500.00 24,683.00 Administration (1 %) 3,500.00 2,742.00 Legal Costs (1 %) 3.500.00 2.742.00 $ 389,100.00 $ 304,417.88 2. The estimated costs to be financed as follows: As Approved As Bid MSA Accounts 2600 (Expendable) 2611 (Restricted Reserve) 2613 (State Approved Projects) Capital Project Fund (Division ) Public Utilities Fund $ 389,100.00 $ 304.417.88 TOTAL REVENUE .$ 389,100.00 $ 304,417.88 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 1 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 V EN EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE TER 911 TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works FROM: H.R. Spurrier, City Engineer DATE: March 18, 1987 RE: 16" Brookdale Watermain Improvement Project No. 1987 -03 Contract 1987 -E Attached is a resolution accepting bid and awarding contract for the Brookdale 16" watermain improvement. This watermain is being constructed in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Plitt Theater site east of Brookdale. Review of Bids As shown on the attached resolution, four bids were received for this project. In reviewing the proposal submitted by the low bidder we noted that this bidder had made an apparent error in writing the unit price for Item 31, "Fence Removal and Replacement (Highway 100)" (see copy attached). With an estimated quantity of 130 linear feet, and using the unit price shown on the proposal (i.e. $1,200.00 per linear foot), the extended total price for this work would be $156,000.00. 0 & P's proposal shows an extended total price of $1,560.00 (which translates to a unit price of $12.00 per linear foot). That extended total price is also reflected on 0 & P's total bid price of $274,250.88 for the entire project. According to the Specifications, when there is a difference between the written unit rice and the extended total the he unit price governs. Using this interpretation, the cost for this relatively incidental item would be more than one -third of the total project amount. It is also noted that the unit price bids submitted by the other 3 bidders for this work item were $6.50, $8.00 and $20.00, while our Engineer's estimated unit price was $15.00. We very regard this as strop evidence that 0 & P's intended g y g unit price was $12.00 per linear foot. Accordingly, we have reviewed this matter with the City Attorney. It is his opinion that, the Specifications "should not be interpreted so as to reach an absurd conclusion ", that it would be proper to conclude that the contractor's intended unit price is $12.00 per linear foot, so long as the contractor submitted a letter stating that there was an error and that he intended the price to be $12.00 per linear foot, and so long as the City Council agrees to waive this informality. "7!u .S"VaAeug now e4x# " March 18, 1987 Page 2 A copy of the contractor's letter indicating that an error was made and showing his intention is attached. 0 & P Contracting has performed work for the City of Brooklyn Center previously, and it is our opinion that they are a responsible contractor. Easement Status Final easement documents have not been executed but will be executed when the land sale transaction is completed. As a result, we have conditioned the award subject to receipt of proper easement documents from Federated Department Stores for the watermain crossing their property. Recommendation On that basis we are recommending that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, a "Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Improvement Project No. 1987 -03, Brookdale 16" Watermain Improvement, Lions Park to County Road 10, Contract 1987 -E. Respectfully submitted, Approved for submittal, • R. � �u '� r i er SY aPP City Engineer Director of Public Works HRS : j SCHEDULE OF PRICES Project No. 1987 -03 Bidder must fill in unit prices in words and figures; make extension for each item total. For complete information concerning these items, see Contract Documents. Item Est Item with Unit'Price Bid No Ouan Written in Words Unit Price Extension 29 2 BLOW -OFF HYDRANT at PJ / and 60 cents per EACH 02 Y/ . / ) $ 112 7/ 1J Ci J 30 20 8" PVVCC/SDR 34 WITH ADAPTERS TO VCP — at / �;� Dollar_ and /;l) ,./ cents per LF 31 130 REMOVE & REPLACE CHAIN LINK FENCE (Highway 100) a Cj, L �7_, �, - I � and GU cents per LF $ / �rL) — $ C _ . _ 32 600 MUCK EXCAVATION (Sta 0 -17 to Sta 1 +20; Remove From Site) at - - '� Dollar and _ ()U cents per CY $ $ r� 2 yC)U . 33 750 SELECT GRANULAR IMPORT at Dollar and cents per TON $ /� !) $ 413S_D 34 475 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC at Dollar_ and /_� cents per Sy $ - 7 $ ' 35 350 ROCK PIPE FOUNDATION at �.- �--� Dollar and C' a cents per TON $ _ $ P -6 (1987 -E) D 4 P eoffmactiNg, JHC. Box 506 Osseo, MN 55369 SEWER AND WATER • SEPTIC TANKS • DRAIN FIELDS RESIDENTIAL • COMMERCIAL OFFICE 427 -9030 March 19, 1987 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Attn: H.R. Spurrier Gentlemen: This is to advise you on Project 87 -03 it was my intent to bid item x"31 at $12.00 per linear foot. The $1200.00 amount reflected a cost per 100 feet. The extension to item x{31 on the proposal is correct at $156o.00. Sincerely, 0 & P Cont ting, Inc. Virgil 0114a President V/d ooq Copire92 We are an equal opportunity employer MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager er g FROM: Brad Hoffman, HRA Coordinator i DATE: March 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Funds Brooklyn Center's Year XIII Community Development Block Grant allocation is $203,565. A public hearing was held March 9, 1987 to receive public comments and /or recommendation relative to proposed expenditures for the moneys. The Citizen's Advisory Committee (note that only Barb Jensen attended the hearing) has recommended the following expenditures: Handicapped Accessibility $ 25,000 Home Rehab Grants $178,565 TOTAL $203,565 Approximately 20 to 25 homes will be rehabilitated with this allocation. Currently, have Y, 23 active grants (grants that have been approved, but not completed). The handicapped accessibility project is a reprogramming of money for projects previously approved and undertaken. The City Hall elevator, the Civic Center entrance system, em and the he sidewalk curb cuts, all projects to be funded with CDBG moneys, were completed after the time allowance for them had been past. At that time, moneys allocated for the project were moved to rehab grants so that we would not lose the funds. In order to close out the projects and receive our reimbursement from CDBG, we need to reestablish the project by providing funds for them once again. You will recall that the City is reimbursed for moneys expended under approved projects. A second resolution before the Council calls for the transfer of $24,750 to Hennepin County. There are three homes in Brooklyn Center with handicapped residents who have applied for grants to make their homes accessible. Also, other work is necessary in each of the homes. It is my recommendation that the money be transferred to Hennepin County to administer this grant. Hennepin County is also doing a grant in these homes (the total grant work will exceed our grant limit). Brooklyn Center will be doing the inspection work and will approve the work to be done. The County will attend to the paperwork involving eligibility, repayment agreements, contractors, and so forth. We have done this in the past, and have a good working relationship with the County staff involved. Basically, each house has two grants going on at one time, and it is much easier to combine them into one. I will be available Monday evening to provide more detail on these projects. i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XIII URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS the City of Brooklyn Center has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the following proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed consistent with program rules. 1. Home Rehabilitation Grant Program $178,565. 2. Handicapped Accessibility $ 25,000 Total $203,565 BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Brooklyn Center approves the proposed use of Year XIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for consideration by the Citizen Advisory Committee and for inclusion in the Year XIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Project Use of Funds. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THREE (3) HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT GRANTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority has established a Home Rehabilitation Grant Program to assist low and moderate income individuals in the maintenance and repair of their homes; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center HRA desires to maximize the use of funds in eliminating blight and deterioration; and WHEREAS, unusual circumstances require the Brooklyn Center HRA to work jointly with the Hennepin Urban County to combine funds to adequately repair and maintain three (3) homes in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, an inspection by the City of Brooklyn Center has determined that the work is necessary and appropriate under the Brooklyn Center Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of Brooklyn Center's participation is not to exceed $24,750. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority that: 1. The Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority does approve the transfer of funds up to $24,750 to the Hennepin Urban County for three (3) home rehabilitation grants. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. REQUEST FOR WRITTEN QUOTATIONS FOR HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR AND LOADER FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BID DATE APRIL 16, 1987 2:00 P.M. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR AND LOADER BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specifications for the delivery of One (1) Heavy Duty Industrial Tractor and Loader are hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the delivery of One (1) Heavy Duty Industrial Tractor and Loader in accordance with said specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 0 BIDDING REQUIREMENTS HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR & LOADER General All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 p.m., April 16, 1987 and shall be submitted on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed envelope plainly marked "Bid for H.D. Tractor and Loader ". Each bid shall be accompanied by a certified check or bidder's bond, payable to the City Clerk, in the amount of at least five percent (5%) of the total amount of the bid. It is also understood that the City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities and to award the contract in the best interest of the City. The tractor proposed and delivered to the City of Brooklyn Center shall be complete in every respect and ready for operation in accordance with these specifications, with certificates of service and inspection submitted at the time of delivery. Manufacturer's reference, trade name, brand, or description mentioned in this proposal are descriptive but not restrictive and used only to indicate type and standard of material or equipment desired. The tractor the bidder proposes to furnish must be of a current production. Obsolete equipment is not acceptable. Catalog information showing make, model, and complete specifications of the cab /chassis the bidder proposes to furnish shall accompany the vendor's bid. Insufficient descriptive information shall be cause for rejection of the bid. The bidder must give assurance to the City of Brooklyn Center in regard to patent infringements and in case of suits against the City by other parties. He must defray all costs in connection with such suit and save the City harmless in all such actions. Guarantee The bidder shall furnish a manufacturer's standard new tractor warranty as a minimum and shall guarantee the equipment as to the specified capacity and satisfactory performance and to be free of defects in design, material, and workmanship. All defective parts, material and labor shall be replaced free of cost to the City of Brooklyn Center. Delivery Date The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City at the earliest possible date. I BIDDING REQUIREMENTS HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR & LOADER General All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:00 p.m., April 16, 1987 and shall be submitted on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed envelope plainly marked "Bid for H.D. Tractor and Loader It is also understood that the City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities and to award the contract in the best interest of the City. The tractor proposed and delivered to the City of Brooklyn Center shall be complete in every respect and ready for operation in accordance with these specifications, with certificates of service and inspection submitted at the time of delivery. Manufacturer's reference, trade name, brand, or description mentioned in this proposal are descriptive but not restrictive and used only to indicate type and standard of material or equipment desired. The tractor the bidder proposes to furnish must be of a current production. Obsolete equipment is not acceptable. Catalog information showing make, model, and complete specifications of the cab /chassis the bidder proposes to furnish shall accompany the vendor's bid. Insufficient descriptive information shall be cause for rejection of the bid. The bidder must give assurance to the City of Brooklyn Center in regard to patent infringements and in case of suits against the City by other parties. He must defray all costs in connection with such suit and save the City harmless in all such actions. Guarantee The bidder shall furnish a manufacturer's standard new tractor warranty as a minimum and shall guarantee the equipment as to the specified capacity and satisfactory performance and to be free of defects in design, material, and workmanship. All defective parts, material and labor shall be replaced free of cost to the City of Brooklyn/Center. Delivery Date The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City at the earliest possible date. Award of Contract Award of the contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be based on, but not necessarily limited to the factors of price, delivery date, parts and service; as well as analysis and comp;rison of specification and performance. Obiections to Specifications Any objections to the specifications must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing five (5) days prior to the opening of the bids. Trade -In The City of Brooklyn Center shall trade -in the following described vehicle: One (1) 1968 Ford 4400 gas tractor loader and cab approximately 9350 hours This machine can be seen by appointment at 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota by calling Dick schwab at 561 -5440, extension 178. Transfer of this trade -in unit to the bidder will be made only after delivery of the new unit by the bidder and acceptance thereof by the City. II SPECIFICATIONS HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR & LOADER Engine: three (3) cylinder diesel engine with 60 net flywheel horsepower at 2200 RPM; minimum of 201 cubic inch displacement; water cooled with anti freeze installed to minus 30 degrees F; cold start aid. Electrical 12 volt system with 128 amp battery and 51 amp heavy duty System: alternator; key starter switch with transmission safety lock Steering: hydrostatic power steering with engine mounted gear type hydraulic pump Transmission: 6 x 4 manual reversing with independent PTO with shuttle shift Chassis: Double reduction final drive; semi - floating rear axles with 10,000 pound rear axle housings; self energizing wet disc brakes operated either individually or simultaneously; front axle capacity rated 9000 pounds with maximum strength of 36,000 pounds; non adjusted axle with tapered welded box; beam construction and truck -type spindles and front grill guard Tires: 11L x 16 F3 10 ply front tires and 16.9 x 24 R3 6 ply turf rear tires with 510 pound rear wheel weights; tires to be filled with fluid Hydraulics: Three point hitch with 8.5 GPM pumps; two lever hydraulic control; one lever position and one lever draft control; manual hydraulic oil flow control and swinging draw bar; two remote control vavles with a float position to operate extra 2 -way hydraulic cylinders; one valve is to be piped to common manifold at the rear of tractor and one to be piped to the right side of tractor forward of the cab with Pioneer 1/2 NPT Quick Couplers Other: Foot accelerator, differential lock, fuel gauge, tachometer, oil pressure warning light, alternator warning light, temperature gauge, tool box, 2 headlights, tail light, instrument panel lights, and one deluxe seat with seatbelts, turn signals, air cleaner restriction indicator Loader: Lifting capacity of 4500 pounds with breakout force of 7200 pounds; loader control with double acting cylinders all around; 27.0 GPM gear pump at 2200 RPM and 2200 PSI; l cubic yard heavy duty bucket at least 81 inches in width; return to dig Roll Cab: OSHA approved all steel cab with roll bar protection; heat 35,000 BTU; defroster and pressurized blower with replaceable filter; front and rear windshild wipers; rearview mirror; moveable back window and removalbe doors; two headlights upper front; dome light; directional lights; and fenders Warranty: Standard full warranty for 1 year; optional extended full warranty for two years for a total of 3 years Manuals: Two (2) copies of service and parts manuals III PROPOSAL HEAVY DUTY INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR AND LOADER Honorable City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Gentlemen: We proposed to furnish and deliver one (1) Heavy Duty Tractor and Loader according to the specifications at the following bid price: Bid Price Less Trade -In Total Delivery Date (calendar days) Signed Firm Name Address City Zip Telephone Date Bid Opening: 2:00 p.m., April 16, 1987 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF STEEL MESH FENCING AT NORTHPORT PARK WHEREAS, an appropriation was approved in the 1987 budget for the purchase of steel mesh fencing for Northport Park; and WHEREAS, $12,000 was appropriated for this purpose; and WHEREAS, three quotations were received as follows: Com'Pa Quote Town & Country Fence Inc. $6,837.89 Crowley Fence Co., Inc. $7,145.00 D & H Fencing Co. $7,497.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the purchase of steel mesh fencing at Northport Park from Town & Country Fence Inc., in the amount of $6,837.89 is hereby approved. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. �h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH FUNK ANIMAL HOSPITAL FOR CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with Funk Animal Hospital, 7805 Jolly Lane, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota for the care of impounded animals from the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: March 19, 1987 SUBJECT: 1987 Animal Pound Contract With Funk Animal Hospital Attached please find a copy of the 1987 proposed animal pound contract as submitted by Funk Animal Hospital. The only changes in the contract are two fee changes and one wording change. The wording change makes the procedure much clearer for adoption of an animal. It states that they will not place any animal without permission from the City and they will refer any inquiries to us. This was being done by practice already, but they have spelled it out in the new contract. The two fee changes are in disposal and euthanasia /disposal. Disposal for an animal received dead on arrival was previously $6.00; it will now be 9.00. Euthanasia and disposal on an $ p unclaimed animal was previously $10.00; it will now be $12.00. I recommend approval of this contract. i ANIMAL POUND CONTRACT is Agreement made by and between the City of 6�gg � 'rzh, a municipal corporation iereinafter called the City) and the FUNK ANIMAL HOSPITAL, 7508 Jolly Lane, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, a sole proprietorship, (hereinafter referred to as the Poundkeeper)s For and in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties agree as follows s WHEREAS, the City is desirous of contracting with the Poundmaster for the purpose of having a facility for the impounding, keeping, sheltering, feeding and boarding of dogs and cats, Which may be picked up pursuant with the City Ordinance by officials of the City= and WHEREAS, the Poundmaster has and Warrants herein that it has good and sufficient facilities to perform said functions adequately and humanely for the City s NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as followss 1. That the Poundmaster shall receive from agents or officials of the City and shall keep, feed, board and shelter all dogs and cats entrusted to the Poundmaster by the City in a humane manner and pursuant to the ordinances of the City and /or any applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota relating to animals. 2. If any dog or cat shall not be reclaimed by the owner within five (5) regular business days, as defined in M.S.A. 35.71, the City shall have no right or interest in such animal and the Poundkeeper may dispose of such animal in a proper and umane manner or in accordance with M.S.A. 35.71, Subdivision 3. In the event the Pound - ster has knowledge of a party other than the owner who is willing to give the animal new home, the Poundmaster shall refer the said party to the Chief of Police or the City Clerk so that the party may attempt to receive permission from the said Police Chief and clerk to pay the required fees to the City and acquire the ownership of the said animal. The Poundmaster shall, not withstanding the aforesaid, in instances where an animal has bitten a human, keep the animal for the ten (10) day period required under stature for observation purposes to determine whether the animal is diseased. In the event any owner shall make claim to the animal within the period specified aforesaid, the animal shall be released by the Poundmaster upon being provided an executed form for such purpose by the City. If the Poundmaster has received specific instructions to continue to hold the animal for a longer period of time the City shall be responsible for the continuing charges there on until the hold is released by the City. In the event the animal is is delivered to the Poundmaster dead on arrival, the Poundmaster shall dispose of the carcass of said animal. In the event that an animal is disposed of by euthanasia, the Poundmaster shall likewise dispose of the carcass of said animal. 3. The Poundmaster shall keep accurate records of all transactions involving animals he receives that have originated through the City pursuant to this Agreement and shall furnish monthly statements and accounts, including setting forth the dis- position of the animals he has received from the City. 4. The Poundmaster shall at no time receive any fees in connection with the licensing, impounding, board, care, keep or shelter of any animals he receives pursuant t c this contract. 4w 5• All charges made pursuant to the obligations of the Poundmaster pursuant to this eement shall be paid by the City directly to the Poundmaster after the Poundmaster has billed and furnished the necessary monthly statements to the City. i The Poundmaster shall be paid based upon the following fee schedule: ,R A) The City shall pay the Poundmaster l / /O, OG per month. as an administrative fee; B) The Poundmaster shall be paid 4 1 , 76 - per day for each day or part of a day which the Poundmaster keeps an Impounded animal; C) The Poundmaster shall be paid •DO for the disposal of the carcass of each animal that he receives in a dead on arrival condition; D) The Poundmaster shall be paid 'fl'?- Of) for each animal wh ich he destroys by euthanasia pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; E) The Poundmaster shall make emergency medical service available after hours at aff illiated Emergency Veterinarian Service on Turners Crossroads in Golden Valley at $45.00 flat rate per call. 7. The Poundmaster shall keep he p Bound open during regular business hours which shall coincide with the hours of the City offices. Animals may be discharged to the owner directly at hours other than the above by the Animal Control Officer of the City or his agents. 8. The pound shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection by the City through its agents or employees. 9. The Poundmaster shall be responsible for all damages or harm suffered by the animal under its care and in its custody which may be due to the negligence or deliberate acts of the Poundkeeper. The Poundmaster shall save the City harmless for * y damages, costs, actions, or causes of actions, or claims made against the City for y harm, losses, damage or expenses on account of bodily injury, disease or death, and operty damage resulting from the Poundmaster's operation. To accomplish this, the Poundmaster shall keep in full force and effect comprehensive general liability insurance in an amount of not less than $100,000.00 for each incident and $300000000 for a combination of incidents to safeguard and indemnify the City for any of the occurences mention aforesaid. 10. It is agreed and understood that the Poundmaster shall abide by all the laws of the State of Minnesota and The City of � and if for some reason said laws become in conflict with each other or he terms of this Agreement, the Pound - master shall, in writing, notify the City of the said conflict so that this Agreement may be modified to conform with the said laws. 11. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from and after its execution and for one year following, provided, however, that the same may be terminated by the agreement of the parties hereto or by either party upon giving sixty (60) days written nt:tice of its intention to terminate this Agreement. WITNESSESS s CITY OF /rr„ F ANIMAL HOSPITAL MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City it Manager er g FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: March 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Ordinance Amendment On February 23, 1987 the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding the Planning Commission. The purpose of the amendment was to allow the Planning Commission's duties and responsibilities to be defined by resolution rather than by ordinance. Subsequent to this first reading, the City Attorney cited three changes that would have to be included in the ordinance amendment. As a result, a new ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding the Planning Commission was first read and approved by the City Council at its March 9, 1987 meeting. Due to this action, staff recommends the ordinance amendment appearing before the City Council for a second reading on March 23, 1987 be denied. The new ordinance amendment will appear for a second reading at the April 6, 1987 City Council meeting. l Da, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 23rd day of March y 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 35 regarding the Planning Commission. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -201. PLANNING COMMISSION. A Planning Commission of seven members is hereby established and continued as a planning agency advisory to the City Council. The City Council may, by resolution define duties and responsibilities of the Planning Commission [Any vacancy in an office of Planning Commissioner, by expiration of his/her term, resignation, or removal shall be filled by appointment of the Mayor, confirmed by a majority vote of the Council. Upon appointment, each Commissioner shall serve for a term of two years or until a successor has been appointed. Each Commissioner shall be a resident of the municipality and shall subscribe to the appropriate oath of office. No Commissioner shall take part in the consideration of any matter wherein he /she is the applicant, petitioner, or appellant, nor in the consideration of any application, petition, or appeal wherein his/her interest might reasonably be expected to affect his/her impartiality. The Planning Commission shall annually elect its Chairman and by majority vote may adopt rules of parliamentary procedure for the conduct of Commission meetings. The said meetings of the Commission shall be held at least once a month and shall be open to the public. There shall be a Secretary to the Planning Commission appointed by the City Manager of the municipality, who shall prepare the minutes of the meetings of the Commission and shall maintain the files and records of the Commission. The Secretary shall have any additional duties delegated to him by the Commission, the City Manager or by the provisions of this ordinance. Section 35 -202. DUTIES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Planning a. Comprehensive Planning. The Commission shall, from time to time, upon its own motion or upon direction of the City Council, review the Comprehensive Plan and by a majority vote of all members of the Commission recommend appropriate amendments to the City Council. Before recommending any such am�r,dments to the City Council, the Commission shall hold at least one public hearing to consider the proposed amendment. The Secretary to the Commission shall publish notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing once in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten (10) days before the date of the heaving. Furthermore, the Secretary shall transmit copies of the proposed amendment to the City Council prior to the publication of the notice of hearing. Following the review and recommendation by the Commission, the City Council shall consider the proposed amendment and may, by resolution of a majority of its membez-s, amend the Comprehensive Plan. b. Coordination with Other Agencies. In the performance of its planning activities, the Commission shall consult with and coordinate the planning activities of other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with and to assist in a development of the comprehensive municipal plan. Furthermore, the Commission shall take due cognizance of the planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public agencies. 2. Platting Before dividing any tract of land into two or more lots or parcels, an owner or subdivider shall, unless a variance is authorized, proceed under the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Rezoning and Special Use Applications The Commission shall hear and review all applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, hereinafter referred to as "Rezoning Applications ", and applications for special use permits. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall maintain permanent files and records for each application to the Commission. The record for each application shall consist of a written application on a form provided by the municipality, the minutes of the Commission upon the hearing of the application, and the written recommendation of the Planning Commission. (See Section 35 -210, Rezoning, and Section 35 -220, Special Use Permits.) 4. Plan Approval Every person, before commencing the construction or major alteration of a structure (except one and two family dwellings and buildings accessory thereto), shall submit information as set out in Section 35 -230 hereof. 5. Variances (Adjustments) and Appeals The Planning Commission shall serve as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals of the municipality. When acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, the Planning Commission's recommendations shall be advisory to the City Council. The rules of parliamentary procedure governing the conduct of Planning Commission meetings shall also govern the conduct of the meetings of the Planning Commission when acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall act as the Secretary of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals and shall maintain permanent files and records for each appeal, application or petition to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Secretary shall maintain a separate file for each application, petition, or appeal to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and shall place in said file, the record pertaining to each proceeding which shall consist of the written application, petition, or appeal; a co 0 PP copy f the minutes of the hearing of the Board; and a copy of the written recommendation of the Board. The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, shall hear applications for variances (adjustments) in accordance with Section 35 -240 and appeals in accordance with Section 35 -250.] Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1987. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) k ; C * TI Zr-NS FOR BUMP yOMMA BROOKL yN WW All NNZ S'0TA M arch «,, 1907 Honorable Mayor Nyquist prwidm° City of Brooklyn Center r 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, Mn 55430 o��++q saera:y: Honorab Mayor �o Rdc w,9aret The Public: Hear that is t aking place this evening is one that Tart Truddmt= should have been the subject of public discussion during 1986, prior to the November Election. The concern that this organization raised lest year about assuring that the voters really knew what the ramifications of a `Yes Vote' would tie, is still a valid one. Nobody advised the voters that their vote in November would mean thiat. in March of 1907, the City Council would be forced to extend their current terms of office, to in some cases as much as from year. to 5 years. The issue before the City Council tonight: cannot be changed very much (at this point in time) by public: input, due to the election having already taken place. In our estimation, the only way to adequately address the problem may be to consider a `Recall Eleac:ti.on'. We recognize, however, that the Recall issue Js not on the table this evening and therefore, may more appropriately be a subject for discussion at another point in time. However, in our opinion, the action you take regarding the ordanance change before you this evening, will without a doubt, be the most drastic ever, in the alignment of the elective terms . of City C ouncil. me mbers. The last time any changes were made in elective office terms was when the City Charter was passed in 1966. 1 . � ^ .^ ^ The Council could peyhOpS opt for other methods of implementation such as haVing th� May0r and � members of the Council running for office in 1988' However, the possibility of a major turnover of elective office in one year could do much to disrupt continuity of government, therefore we feel it would not be in the best interest of our community' We feel it is very unfortunate, that the City Council has been placed squarely in the middle of this whole episode by the r � Uharter Commission, they having failed to inform the public of � the consequences on the prVposal that is going to be implemented this evening' An action that will have far reaching affects on � � how our City is going to be governed in the next decade' To sum up the situation as we see it, this is clearly a result of a Chorter Commission rVnning unbr�(]l�� over the elective officials � of this city' Arid it appears, that this is only the tip of the . � iceberg, as at thie., February Charter Commission meeting, the issue ` : � Of , Ward Government' was introduced' ' Another factor was `Managed` News information by the local paper. � The editor eVidc�Dtly Choose "when' Or 'when not' to publish , ` reportS of Council discussion ti thi � or action �n a issue. � � , To further complicate the matter it appears the City Council was � ~ ` caught in a revolving door of legal advice that changed from ( _ meeting to meeting on how to resolve the implementation of the � Charter Amendment. In the end, the City Attorney assured the � � Council that the proposal finally recommended is Bullet Proof; ' ' Safe from Challenge; Self Executing; etc;. We wonder who these � 2 - � � rather strong words are intended to protect the City Council from:- It seem.: that all that artillery is perhaps being aimed at the citizens of the community, who might: well take exc e ption to it. For the past 20 years this City has been governed well b y the form of non - partisan local government that has existed- Nothin g has come forward that demand: the violent changes that will result from t:.oni.ghts action- In closing, we feel very strongly that from this point forward, the City C:ounc:il must take a much more pro role (right from the beginning) when these ba4-::.i.c: issues on structure of government surface. We feel this is necessary, in order to f assure that the rights of all our citizens are adequately protected. We must always remember that the actions of today lie shape what we pass on to the next g rou p of elective officials, as well as the future residents of this city. Government responsive to the people does not normally come easy and it is our feeling that the action being taken this evening will be distancing City Government even further from it citizens. Thank you for this opportunity to address you on this most import or i ssue . p taut X y, �, President for Better Government 6218 Kyle Ave N Brooklyn Center, Mn 55429 cc City Councilmembers City Manager Editor, Brooklyn Center Post n L `oL ,i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 23rd day of March , 1987 at 7 :30 p_m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance implementing changes in the City Charter which were approved by the voters at the regular election held on November 4, 1986. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 29 OF CITY ORDINANCES TO BRING EXISTING TERMS OF OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE AMENDED CITY CHARTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS; SECTION I. Chapter 29 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 29 -405. EXTENSION OF TERMS OF OFFICE TO O F C N ORM WITH CHARTER AMENDMENTS. The terms of office of the Mavor and members of the City Council existing on December 4, 1986, the effective date of charter amendments, are hereby extended to conform to such charter amendments. 1. The term of office of Mayor is extended through and including December 31, 1990. 2. The term of council member occupied by Council Member Hawes is extended through and including December 31, 1988. 3. The term of council member occupied by Council Member Lhotka is extended through and including December 31, 1990. 4. The term of council member occupied by Council Member Scott is extended through and including December 31, 1990. 5. The term of council member occupied by Council Member Theis is extended through and including December 31, 1988. SECTION 29 -406. EXTENDED TERMS DEEMED TRANSITORY. Upon expiration of the extended terms described in this Ordinance, . terms of office of the Mayor and council members shall conform in all respects to the City Charter. ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1987. Dean Nyquist, Mayor ATTEST: Darlene Weeks, Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted) t ) MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 12, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mike Nelson, and Lowell Ainas. Also present were City Engineer Bo Spurrier, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Mary Lou Larsen, Recording Secretary. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Carl Sandstrom, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt were unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 29, 1987 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the January 29, 1987 Planning Commission as submitted. Voting in favor Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 87001 AND 87002 (Construction 70, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary reviewed the first two items of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 6,016 sq. ft. Learning Tree Day Care Center south of the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive (Application No. 87001) and a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land on Earle Brown Drive between the Park Nicollet Clinic and the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive (Application No. 87002). The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 87001 and 87002 attached). He stated that these applications had first been reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 15, 1987 and were tabled at that time for the applicant to provide a detailed plan as to how they would provide noise attenuation to the play area that was proposed to abut T.H. 100. He explained that concept had been abandoned and that now the applicant proposed to alter the location of the building and the play lots. Following a brief discussion regarding the applications, Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Gene Peterson, representing the Learning ree Da Care g Center stated that he h nothing Y had n hzn further to add. g PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 87001 and 87002) Chairman Lucht then noted that the public hearing for Application Nos. 87001 and 87002 had been continued at the January 15, 1987 meeting.. He asked whether anyone wished to speak regarding those applications. No one spoke. He then called for a. motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting n favor: Chairman Lucht g , Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Ainas. Voting against. none. The motion passed unanimously. 3 -12 -87 _1_ F ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87001 (Construction 70, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 87001 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3• A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7• Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. Plan approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking for up to 30 parking spaces. The applicant, shall execute an agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, to install said parking spaces upon a determination by the City that they are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. This agreement shall be filed with the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The plans shall be modified to provide a minimum 4' high wood fence, per ordinance requirements, between the play area and the driving and parking area. 12. The screen fence along the east side of the toddler area shall be a minimum of 8' and may "step down" to 5' along the south property line. 13. Roof drainage shall be collected and conveyed to the storm sewer in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 14. The special use permit is issued for a group day care facility only. No other special use is acknowledged by the approval. 3 -12 -87 -2- 15• The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations including licensing by the state, any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 16. A copy of the operating license for the facility shall be kept on file with the City. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87002 (Construction 70, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 87002 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a utility maintenance agreement prior to release of the final R.L.S. for filing. 4. The existing nonconforming sign located near the northeast corner of the proposed Tract B shall be removed prior to release of the final R.L.S. for filing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lueht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Gene Peterson informed the Commission that the owner of the property has some concerns about removing the existing sign (which is considered a nonconforming billboard) on Tract A. He stated the owner would like to leave the sign up until the property has been sold. The Secretary informed Mr. Peterson that the property in question is entitled to a real estate sign, but not billboards. One of the conditions of approval for the final R.L.S will be to have the sign removed. An appropriate real estate sign could then be placed on the property. APPLICATION NO. 87005 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 10,000 sq. ft., 2 story office building on a vacant parcel at 7213 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 87005 attached). Commissioner Malecki asked the applicant what material would be used for the exterior of the building. The applicant, Dave Nelson, responded that he planned to use a stone exterior and showed the Commission a sample of the product. A brief discussion ensued regarding the exterior material for the building and also, landscaping for the project. Mr. Nelson stated that the exterior would be either the stone material shown, if it is available, or brick. The Secretary recommended there be a 14th Condition added to the conditions of approval for this application regarding the need to execute a utility maintenance agreement. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 87005 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 87005 subject to the following conditions: 3 -12 -87 -3- 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation sytem shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built utility survey of the property prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for up to 50 parking spaces. The applicant shall execute an agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, to install said parking spaces upon a determination by the City that they are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. This agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits in the following manner: a) The landscape plan shall be modified to replace the three large shade trees west of the building with either decorative trees or shrubs. b) The drainage plan shall be modified to show a sediment control plan consistent with the requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. 12. The applicant must obtain a permit from the Department of Natural Resources prior to the commencement of any site work in protected water areas. 3 -12 -87 -4- t 13. The applicant shall provide an appropriate easement, as approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, over new water detention areas. 14. The property owner shall enter into a utility maintenance agreement prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION 0 NO 87006 (Continental Communications /Willard Blake) Chairman Lucht noted that the applicant or a representative was not present. He stated the Commission should next review the discussion items and then return to this item, if the applicant shows up. DISCUSSION ITEMS. a) Expansion of Highway 100 Racquet Club Off -site Parking Lot The Secretary reviewed the Highway 100 Racquet Club plans to expand their off -site parking by adding 100 stalls. The Secretary noted that off -site parking is a special use in that zone and may require submission of a formal special use application and public hearing. The Secretary added that a formal submission could possibly be waived as the City still holds a performance bond on this property. There was a brief discussion regarding a possible 1988 street upgrading of France Avenue between the south City boundary and 50th Avenue which could include Lakebreeze Avenue North. The Secretary stated the Racquet Club would support the street upgrading. He also noted that some concerns have been mentioned regarding some traffic back -up on Lakebreeze and that it was suggested that a second access or some parking lot revisions in the main lot be undertaken to alleviate the problem. He added that the property owner has agreed to review the matter and take some corrective action. Chairman Lucht suggested extra lighting at the pedestrian crossing. City Engineer Bo Spurrier also expressed a concern regarding the lighting at the pedestrian crossing. The Secretary stated that the staff would look into the lighting concern. Further discussion ensued regarding the parking at the Racquet Club. Following the discussion it was the consensus of the Commission that a formal submittal need not be required provided the Racquet Club address the lighting concern by the pedestrian crossing and work with the staff to reduce traffic backup on Lakebreeze through Possible revisions to the main parking lot. b) Sign Ordinance Regarding Billboards The Secretary next reviewed a letter from the City Attorney's office regarding the current status of the law regarding billboards. He explained the City Attorney had been requested to analyze the effect of recent Court decisions as they related to the City's Sign Ordinance involving billboards. The Secretary noted that the Sign Ordinance defines a billboard as any off -site sign and goes on to prohibit these signs with some exceptions. The Secretary stated that the thrust of the City Attorney's letter is that if the City wants to continue to prohibit billboards as it currently does, he would advise some amendments to the ordinance in line with recent Court decisions. 3 -12 -87 -5- r 1 A discussion ensued relative to the letter, the Court cases and the City's regulation of billboards. The Commission believed that it was in the best interests of the community to continue to regulate billboards as it currently does. ACTION DIRECTING DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to concur with the City Attorney's recommendation and to direct staff to draft an ordinance amendment in line with the City Attorney's recommendations. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. c) Commission's Duties and Responsibilities The Secretary reviewed an ordinance amendment regarding duties of the Planning Commission. He stated that as part of the Year 2000 report it is recommended that the City standardize duties for all Advisory Commissions. He noted that duties and responsibilites for the most part would be acknowledged through resolution. A discussion ensued regarding appointment of the Chairman of the Planning Commission by the Mayor with consent of the City Council instead of the Chairman being elected by the Planning Commission; the procedure for appointments to draw people from the six neighborhood areas; and a procedure for interim appointments for temporary replacement in the event a Commissioner becomes ill or is unable to perform the duties for a period of time. Commissioner Malecki expressed disagreement with the idea of having the Chairman appointed by the Mayor rather than elected by the Commission. She stated that she believed that the Chairman should be someone who has experience serving on the Commission and that the election of the Chairman generally provides this. She expressed concern, although she quickly pointed out that it has not been the case, that the appointment of the Chairman could be a political appointment with little or no consideration given to the Chairman's ability to preside over the body. It was suggested that perhaps the wording should be that the Mayor appoint the Chairman with the consent of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Malecki and other Commission members stated they believed the current election process was the best. Commissioner Ainas stated that the idea of an interim appointment was good. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission's comments would be conveyed to the City Council. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 87006 (Continental Communications /Willard Blake) Chairman Lucht recommended tabling the application because the applicant was not present. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 P.m. Chairman 3 -12 -87 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87001 Applicant: Construction 70, Inc. Location: Earle Brown Drive (south of 6040 Office Building) Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Location /Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 6,016 sq. ft. Learning Tree Day Care Center on the vacant parcel of land south of the office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. The land in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by a four story office building, on the east by Highway 100, on the south by vacant C2 zoned land (the southerly three acres of this 3.93 acre site is to be subdivided off) and then the Park Nicollet Clinic, and on the west by Earle Brown Drive. The proposed day care center is a special use in the C2 zoning district. The proposed site would be a newly subdivided tract, approximately 122 ft. x 309 ft. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its January 15, 1987 meeting at which time the Commission tabled the matter and continued the public hearing until a revised plan could be submitted. It was the applicant's original intent to provide a noise wall along the east property line so that the yard area abutting along T.H. 100 could be utilized as a recreational or play area for the day care facility. Section 35 -412, Subsection 7 prohibits recreational areas in yards abutting a major thoroughfare, unless buffered by a frontage road, or a noise wall or noise berm constructed by MN /DOT. The applicant had pursued the idea of constructing their own noise barrier, but has decided against that possibility and has, therefore, revised their site plan to provide for the play area in a different location. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the Planning Commission Information Sheet which was presented to the Commission on January 15, as well as a copy of the then proposed site plan. The revised plan calls for the building to be turned so that it would run in an east to west fashion rather than north to south as in the previous plan. The building would be set back 50 ft. from the T.H. 100 right -of -way meeting the minimum setback requirement from a major thoroughfare. This yard would not be utilized for other than landscaping purposes. The play area would be located along the south side of the building and would extend westerly to the Earle Brown Drive right -of -way line. It is believed that the proposed play area meets the intent of Section 35 -412, Subdivision 7 in that it provides a large play area that extends approximately 165 ft. from the west wall of the facility to the west property line. The play area for toddlers in the south yard extends 38 ft. from the building to the south property line and is separated from the main play area by chain link fence. A wood fence, 5 ft. high, is proposed along the south property line for screening and buffering the play area. The wood fence extends westerly approximately 155 ft. and then chain link fencing is used around the remainder of the play area. The ordinance requires a minimum 4 ft. high wood fence to appropriately separate the play area from parking and driving areas. The plans should be modified for this type separation between the parking lot and the play area where only chain link fencing is shown. We would also recommend consideration of a wood fence around the entire play area because the possibility exists, with development of the parcel to the south, that a parking lot may be located adjacent to this property and play area. 3 -12 -87 -1- Application No. 87001 continued A Also, the height of the wood fence on the entire east end of the play field should be raised to approximately 8 ft. and then stepped down to 5 ft. to provide proper noise attenuation for the toddler area. 0 Access /Parking Access to the site would be g ained via a single access which would be shifted slightly north from that proposed under the previous plan. Twenty Four parking spaces are proposed for installation with a turn around /dropoff area provided. The parking requirement for this 6,016 sq. ft. building is 30 spaces based on the oridinance arkin formula of one ace for ever 200 s . ft. of gross floor area. P g P Y q g Thirty spaces could be provided on the site b utilizing a portion of the play area Y P P y g P for parking and a reconfiguration of the parking plan. The 24 stalls proposed is believed to be AP adequate provided the applicant executes and files a proof -of- q P 0 s parking agreement which would require the installation of any or all parking g p aces up to the 30 required upon determination by the City that they are needed. Landscaping The revised landscape plan calls for 8 Emerald Green Maple trees mainly within and on the edges of the play area; six Sparkler Crabs along the north property line and various shrubs such as Bar harbor Junipers, Dwarf Amur Maple and Dwarf Ninebark around the building and the greenstrip north of the access to the site. The landscape plan provides 111 points based on the Landscape Point System. One Hundred points is the minimum required for a site between 0 and 2 acres (this site is .884 acres) . The Commission's attention is directed to the previous report dated 1/15/87 for review of the remaining matters regarding the site plan and special use as they are, for the most part, the same. With the modifications proposed, we believe the Standards for Special Use Permits can be met and recommend approval of this application subject to at least the followin g conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official 'o to the issuance of permits. with respect to applicable codes prior P P PP r P 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5• The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 3 -12 -87 -2- 2 I Application No. 87001 continued 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. Plan approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking for up to 30 parking spaces. The applicant shall execute an agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, to install said parking spaces upon a determination by the City that they are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. This agreement shall be filed with the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The plans shall be modified to provide a minimum 4' high wood fence, per ordinance requirements, between the play area and the driving and parking area. 12. The screen fence along the east side of the toddler area shall be a minimum of 8' and may "step down" to 5' along the south property line. 13. Roof drainage shall be collected and conveyed to the storm sewer in a manner approved by the City Engineer. 14. The special use permit is issued for a group day care facility only. No other special use is acknowledged by the approval. 15. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations including licensing by the state, any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 16. A copy of the operating license for the facility shall be kept on file with the City. 3 -12 -87 -3- , Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87002 Applicant: Construction 70, Inc. Location: Earle Brown Drive (south of 6040 Office Building) Request: Registered Land Survey The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the parcel of land between the Park Nicollet Medical Center and the four -story office building at 6040 Earle Brown Drive. The land in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the northeast by the office building, on the southeast by T.H. 100, on the southwest by the Park Nicollet Medical Clinic, and on the northwest by Earle Brown Drive. The purpose of the subdivision is to create separate parcels for the proposed Learning Tree Day Care Center and a remaining vacant lot. This item was first considered by the Planning Commission at its January 15, 1987 meeting and was tabled along with Application No. 87001, also submitted by Construction 70, Inca involving a site and building plan and special use permit for the Learning Tree Day Care Center. The Commission's attention is directed to the staff report presented on January 15 for further information. This application is recommended for approval subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final R. L. S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R. L. S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a utility maintenance agreement prior to release of the final R. L. S. for filing. 4. The existing nonconforming sign located near the northeast corner of the proposed Tract B shall be removed prior to release of the final R. L. S. for filing. 3 -12 -87 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87005 Applicant: Uhde /Nelson Location: 7213 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 10,000 sq. ft., 2 story office building on a vacant parcel at 7213 Brooklyn Boulevard. The site plan has been designed to accommodate requirements of the watershed district and flood plain regulations. The zoning of this property is Cl, Service /Office District and the parcel is, therefore, a permitted use in this zone. The parcel is bounded on the west by the Red Lobster off -site parking lot; on the north by C2 zoned property (Red Lobster) and on the south by R -3 residentially zoned property. Shingle Creek runs along the south side of the proposed development. The building is proposed to house office space for a realty company. Access /Parking The proposed site plan shows access to the building from an existing private road, so there would be no direct access from the site to Brooklyn Boulevard. The road currently serves Red Lobster and CEAP. A left turn lane is provided on Brooklyn Boulevard. The parking requirement for this 10,000 sq. ft. office building is 50 spaces based on the office parking formula requiring 1 space per 200 sq. ft. of grass floor area. Forty seven spaces are shown on the plans with three additional shown as proof -of- parking. The parking lot is paved, striped and surrounded by B612 curb. Drainage is provided for the lot by two catch basins which are connected to the storm sewer along Brooklyn Bouelvard. The lot is lighted with three lights, on poles located at the south and east sides. Landscape /Screening The landscape plan proposed 22 large shade trees on the site, 4 along the west lot line behind the building, one on each side of the driveway, 6 along Brooklyn Boulevard and the remainder in the lower north creekside area. These are supplemented by 4 spruce along Brooklyn Boulevard and shrubs throughout the site. Additional plantings are provided in the traffic islands and sidewalk areas in front of the building. It is suggested that the three large trees on the west side of the building be changed to smaller plantings since they will overhang the property line and would crowd the building when fully grown. The landscape plan conforms with the Landscape Point System adopted by the Planning Commission for evaluating landscape plans. The south edge of this site abutts residentiall zoned property (R -3) , so screening of the parking lot is required. The screening has not been submitted at this time, but information from the architect suggests it will be a combination fence /retaining wall constructed of treated timbers. Design of this structure will be subject to approval of the City Engineer and the Building Official. A 35' greenstrip is provided on the east side of the site as required of property adjacent to a major thoroughfare, in this case Brooklyn Boulevard. A berm and landscaping is provided in this area to screen the parking lot and would seem to be adequate for this purpose. Flood Plain /Watershed District /Drainage Approximately 50% of the site is located in the flood plain area and the Regulatory .3 -12 -87 -1- Application No. 87005 continued Flood Datum in this area is 859.2 (Regulatory Flood Elevation). The building itself is not located in the 100 year flood plain and has a first floor elevation of 861.0 which is above the elevation required if it was. Filling the site will be done at the north creekside area to provide the compensating and water storage required by the watershed district. A DNR permit to work around protected waters is required for this work and has been applied for by the developer. The Shingle Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plan and approved it subject to the following conditions: 1. A DNR permit to work in protected waters must be approved. 2. The drainage plan must be amended to show the sediment control plan. 3. The property owner must provide an easement over the new detention areas. Building The proposed two story 10,000 sq. ft. building will have a glass and brick or stucco exterior and a flat roof. Occupant load would be 100 (from Uniform Building Code) Fire sprinklers are required and handicap access, toilet facilities, and an elevator are provided. The setback on the west and north lot lines would require one -hour construction of those walls, but no limitation on openings in them. Compliance to one -hour construction should be no problem in this building. The plans appear to be in order and are recommended for approval subject to at the following conditions: 1. Building Plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitiate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 3 -12 -87 -2- Application No. 87005 continued 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built utility survey of the property prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for up to 50 parking spaces. The applicant shall execute an agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, to install said parking spaces upon a determination by the City that they are necessary for the proper functioning of the site. This agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits in the following manner: a) The landscape plan shall be modified to replace the three large shade trees west of the building with either decorative trees or shrubs. b) The drainage plan shall be modified to show a sediment control plan consistent with the requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. 12. The applicant must obtain a permit from the Department of Natural Resources prior to the commencement of any site work in protected water areas. 13. The applicant shall provide an appropriate easement, as approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, over new water detention areas. 3 -12 -87 -3- • A Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87006 Applicant: Continental Communications - Willard Blake Location: 1800 Freeway Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a retail showroom, displaying electronic equipment, in conjunction with his communication service center at 1800 Freeway o - 1 Boulevard. The building and parcel in question are zoned I Y P g q and are bounded on the north by the Northwestern Bell service building, by James Avenue North on the east b Freeway reeway Boulevard on the south, and Shingle Creek Parkway on the west. Continental Communications currently is housed at the Northbrook Shopping Center and the applicant proposes to relocate this business to the present proposed site. The use rimaril involves servicing and repairing P P Y g communication equipment such as CB and marine radios and antennas. The applicant has indicated a desire for a small showroom and customer service area and has acknowledged that some retailing of this communication equipment would be done. The applicant's use is the type use comprehended as a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. _ Section 35 -330, Subdivision 3f would YP acknowledged this type of use in g the I -1 zoning district provided it meets the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in 35 -220, Subdivision 2 and also, the criteria outlined in Section 35- 330, Subdivision 3f (copies attached). The space the applicant desires to occupy in the westerly wing of this u- shaped building is located at the very north end. The area proposed would be 1,330 sq. ft. with a breakdown of approximately 500 sq. ft. for showroom and customer service area • 150 s . ft. for r office ar q ea and 680 sq. ft. primarily for storage and equipment repair area. They project a maximum of 8 employees to handle the operation. Commercial developments such as this are acknowledged as special uses in the I -1 zoning district, as was mentioned above, under Section 35 -330, Subdivision 3f of the Zoning Ordinance, provided they meet the Standards for Special Use Permits and further provided that they are compatible and complimentary to other land uses in the Industrial Park district and are of ara le intensity to permitted - 1 com b e d I P Y A district uses. Furthermore, g Y ermore the traffic generated b the use must be within the capacity of available public facilities and not have an adverse impact on the Industrial Park or the community. Given these criteria and the applicant's proposal, the staff is of the opinion that all of the standards for this type special use permit can be met. Perhaps the biggest concern, as with other commercial type uses in this industrial building, has to do with available parking. The Commission will perhaps recall the last special use permit application involving this same building, that being Application No. 86032 submitted by Spiritual Life Ministries, Inc. That application was approved by the City Council in September of 1986 and involved religious and educational uses in the space formerly occupied by Viking Gym. A large portion of the parking available on the site was required for the Spiritual Life Ministries' use due to the potential for large crowds attending various educational and religious services. However, these times are considered to be off - peak from that of the other uses housed in this building. The parking requirement, based upon use of the 1,300 sq. ft. proposed by this applicant, would be 13 parking stalls. Given the uses already in existence on the 3 -12 -87 -1- Application No. 87006 continued site, the vast majority of the 282 parking spaces are already allocated. There is a "proof -of- parking" lot for 71 parking stalls on the northwest portion of this site and given the configuration of the building, there is certainly potential for • additional parking on the site in the northerly parking area. Approval of this application should acknowledge that parking for the proposed use, as well as other uses already in the building, will not be complicated because of the off -peak nature of the Spiritual Life Ministries use and the fact that there is space available on the site for additional parking. An acknowledgement, from the owner of the building, to provide additional parking on the site should be a condition of the approval of this application. All in all, we feel that this application is in order and the Standards for Special Use Permits can be met and recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tenant improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of a communications service center involving a retail showroom for displaying and selling electronic equipment as well as an office in conjunction with this operation. No other commercial activity is acknowledged by this special use permit approval. 4. The owner of the property shall acknowledge his responsibility for guaranteeing the striping and delineating of additional parking stalls at the northwest corner of the site upon a determination by the City that parking demand on the site exceeds the available number of parking spaces. 5. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 3 -12 -87 -2- n Y is i I ,B r ` � J � �,. AM s ' Ail A � � r e„ ' �I 9 :A OOK rr% Wr C-T -- $' yb Wfi asY. � IPaN f iuv: sv. t � Q + i �A } 818.5 •f8' w.P 4 {, �.' s �I IYaN 'M5 um. OUF69 1 V ri r l -- 0 tbs 3 - -A LLLL 0 V n p► ° + * y ' , s 7 INV �• 920 81115 +wr ' ro ib bt9.35 bt°'.�•3s aaK LA y. 'I El l Rfryr 7P� t?° ova FE Bt�s - — °uf -too, r, r v? Bsl.o + t. i i c'F' oG B+b w. . foF t la � t Tyr Cmkr. t.,, hl�#1Vlf"! cry �o W -- - -� - /fib � � •' \ s o �. � • tic � n, .o � \� , � N t d , E1 DD I S, 1 P \ \ . ... ::,�., E /o 0r •}� • � >• � tb t ar �1e .a •/ .c w 1 W / O • 1 A 1 / t r 1 1 Seale. 1• 30. n �- V I pi nl . s .�� •'L tD , t olacnn . / ► Postal ahO10 re Tr) I 0 ,4 ..K, Count) / Count) f I I oreer .ee sueel I b- le I / i•'♦ 0 el 1 hereby ctrtlr « I I • •I 12'11 bounden N•' - but .... " on sole lone. r q ,'r > c 'r 74TH r� 1 Y i c / PPLICATION NO. 87005 ' T f w WOODBINE --IN Q Z j r SHINGLE .ggjEE �� i I� % BAST' Q' Q so 72 NO ♦ m r R � '��Gi ♦ �i O LUUJ Lt I i t ♦ `�'� QUAIL �;� PJ - 71 ST CIRCLE + i t ; i WILLOW R5 LANE SCHOOL 2 WILLOW LANES 7 / PARK a a Q A - YI. v + 34 N o** 713 �f .:: -.. 4EPOST .. ti \ I ?.4 4d 10=0 6UILRIN 1. mw sN tLT6ALK 177.37• S�NSfAUVILra IQ' F A- - Io=K ° r------- ---- --•- - - - -- ,F -- A - - -- - Bahl • BLV4. Ev6E 10 I .. ` ,a8 av:� �+ As�O 4 � � a r` �• . . oft,UR LINE. PIELV VERIFY 2 STORY OFFICE BLDG. cl r . p d L1 L J C t d y SITE toAl[RElE E6U 51AIR MN°IU4 Y. t � •_ }� � � � � ��. 1. a R h i � s nVCKUt4 , A' L ;{ � � •{,�'� r 7 it 0 Y F '�` s -- :p1 ar SLO 6 -- `--- 7 .- 1 - �' r r� 7 Y Kid nY't * 'L �r,:3< k�7 iC�4t 6LR4. toRNER to J 0 u ¢lo•SET6 ►eK Z LINE- `15'EAyE1'IENT IS ^• ' "�" ` u SGt P"K LING. �aSKlhr - - `i Et 1 i•R'„rK� _ . -. , `, . o r !1 ' FILL7, VERIFY: • I y ' 4 S<'qt f a :. C °' ,, E I F �- .... m O '� I •1apt Yf PRC _ o it d o 0 0 WAgII W %IN LIW I NA6 J 11r1ecK4 s � I vmo 0 • `� • %� a s 334 .98 N SITE PLAN L,. GA �� 177.37' vN G,p, Ja O r -- -- ----- --- - - - - -- -- GREESIANDIN4 Stv.iJ DN �� `� �AKtU PERM SL `� SEE 4RADIN4 2 STORY 0 PLAN OFFICE BLDG. v JQ `. BLALK DIRt JA 7N PLAN11 A1y / v ED � " 4A I S JA L SL `` P I JA JA � RocK PROVIDE "0 LA 5 AM ovr-R POLY w1 R o y F lo/-K JA ROLK fim5r -R E REfAIN1A14 ISLAND o R Poly \ i WALLQ4 =0" N14H GA , m _ , FEDED t°i, EI PS \ AM Ra 61 R6 Ss 61 RM \ 1 � KM __ 55 55 6 2'j�SODDt Isa SEVVE.c SH�N EE _ VERIFY LOLA'(IOAJ of EXISTING. 'YRE.E5 -_ TD �E_ SA1�ED 334 .98_ LANDSCAPE PLAN SLA.L i DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION ONLY - NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK STUDY /MASTER PLAN JUNE 12 1986 COMPILED BY A STUDY TEAM WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES: I ANOKA COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 4 c . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Maps Page INTRODUCTION Regional Recreation Open Space System . . . 1 Mandate to Establish a New Regional Park. . 1 The Planning Process. . . . . . . . .. . . 2 Existing Development and Major Issues . . - 3 Existing Development/ .Issues 4 Relationship to Other Planning Documents. . 5 Feasibility, Advisory Group /General Public Concerns, Major Issues Recommendations 9 STUDY AREA /RESOURCES Study Area. . . . . . . 16 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 REGIONAL ANALYSIS Population. . . . 19 Regional Context 20 Nearby Recreation Facilities. . . . . . . . 22 Recreation Activity Demand. . . . . . . . 23 Public Accessibility. . . . . . . . . .. . . 24 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . 26 PARK BOUNDARY Ownership . 30 Ownership. . . . . . 31 Proposed Boundary . . . . 32 Acquisition Priorities /Phasing. . . . . . 33 Interim Stewardship . . . . . . . . . 35 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT Introduction. 36 Existing Development. 36 Recreation Management Objectives. . . . . 37 Proposed Development. . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Proposed Develop - ment . . . . . . . . 44 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PUBLIC AWARENESS Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Operations and Maintenance. . . . . . . 45 Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . . 49 Funding and Implementation. . . . . . . . . 50 i 2 P � l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page M_ a—s Page APPENDICES A. Study Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B. Regional Park /Trail Definitions 54 C. Minnesota Department of Transportation Correspondence . 56 D. Residents /Owners Notification . . . . . . . 58 1 • t M1' . DRAFT INTRODUCTION REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE SYSTEM The 1974 Metropolitan Parks Act (Minn. Stat., Ch. 473.147 1978) established a regional recreation open space system comprised of regional parks, park reserves and trail corridors. The current 45 -acre regional system includes 28 parks, 10 park reserves and 4 trail corridors open to the public. Once completed, the 60 -unit regional system will include 38 parks, 14 park reserves and 6 trail corridors and will meet the Metropolitan Area's need for regional recreation open space to the year 2000. The Metropolitan Parks Act created a partnership between the Council, advised by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, and a group of regional park implementing agencies including counties, special park districts and cities. The partnership works as follows: The Council prepares a regional ' park system plan and obtains funding from the state. The implementing agencies prepare master plans for each regional park under their jurisdiction. Follow- ing master plan approval by the Council, the implementing agencies request Council grant funds to acquire and develop regional parks. Funds are granted under contracts for specific acquisition or development projects in accordance with the approved master plan. The agencies own and operate the parks using local funds. MANDATE TO ESTABLISH A NEW REGIONAL PARK Under the provisions of Laws of Minnesota 1985 Special Session, Chap. 16, Sec. 5,_subd. 2(b), the Metropolitan Council, ...shall, unless not feasible, promptly designate the area on the east and west banks of the Mississippi river, consisting of the lands northward from the Camden area of the city of Minneapolis to the I -694 corridor, as a regional park. The Hennepin County park reserve district (now Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District) and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board are the operating agencies, with cooperation from the affected units of government... 1 1 I V DRAFT In subsequent legislation, Anoka County was also named as an operating agency. The law also appropriates $500,000 in state bond proceeds and mandates the Council to, ...spend for this project (i.e., land acquisition /development) all interest earned on the appropriations in this subdivision ($12,750,000) and on any other money, up to $1 9 500,000.... When the law was passed in June 1985, the Metropolitan Council began a program which sets aside interest funds earned on invested regional park funds. Some- time during Fiscal Year 1987 (July 1, 1986 - July 1, 1987), $2 million will be available for acquisition and development of North Mississippi Regional Park. PLANNING PROCESS Metropolitan Council parks and open space staff initiated a study team com- prised of representatives from the implementing agencies which would be involved in the study and the establishment of the park. In addition to Council staff, the team includes representatives from the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB), the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD), and Anoka County. The study team was formed and began to meet in September and October, 1985. They adopted a work plan and planning process which would involve two advisory groups: the Staff Liaison Group and the Citizen Advisory Group. The Staff Liaison Group includes staff from the agencies that are involved in the major issues in establishing the park. The Citizen Advisory Group is comprised of neighborhood representatives from the communities surrounding the park study area. The two advisory groups were appointed as follows: Staff Liaison Group 1 - Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) staff 1 - Minneapolis Waterworks staff 1 - City of Brooklyn Center staff 1 - Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) staff 1 - City of Fridley staff 5 2 DRAFT Citizen Advisory Group 1 - Chair, appointed by the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission 2 - Northeast Minneapolis representatives, appointed by MPRB 2 - Camden area representatives, appointed by MPRB 2 - Minneapolis city -wide representatives, appointed by MPRB 1 - Senator Kroening appointee 2 - Brooklyn Center representatives, appointed by SHRPD 2 - SHRPD -wide representatives, appointed by SHRPD 1 - Senator Luther appointee 2 - Fridley representatives, appointed by Anoka County Board 2 - Anoka County -wide representatives, appointed by Anoka County Board 17 The study team met several times in the fall of 1985, and began meetings with the Staff Liaison Group and Citizen Advisory Group in mid- January, 1986 (see Study Schedule, Appendix A). Following the initial Citizen Advisory Group meeting on Jan. 15 all subsequent Citizen Advisory Group meetings were held as open public meetings. Public press releases were issued and all residents/ owners within the study area were notified and encouraged to become involved in the planning process. By the completion of the June 12, 1986, draft plan, the Citizen Advisory Group held meetings on Jan. 15 and 29, Feb. 19, March 5 and 26, and April 16. The study team attended all Citizen Advisory Group meet - ings. The Staff Liaison Group met with the study team on Jan. 14 and March 17. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR ISSUES - — - The.study area as defined by the 1985 legislation includes the east and west banks of the Mississippi River from the Camden area of Minneapolis north to the I -694 bridge. For the purposes of this study, a study area boundary is shown on the Existing Development /Issues Map, page 4, which is bound on the west by I -94 and the east by East River Road. Existing development on the east bank includes a portion of the recently developed Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park and the Minneapolis Water Treatment Plant. On the west bank, there are essentially four areas of development: the North Mississippi Park (owned by the MPRB), the Mississippi Courts residential area (owned by Minneapolis Com- munity Development Agency), a residential area extending along Lyndale Avenue North from 51st Avenue to 57th Avenue North, and a thin strip of land owned by Mn /DOT with a small boat access operated by the City of Brooklyn Center. 3 Study Area Boundary ' ■ Picnic Shelter / -694 Boat Access ••• - -••- Bike /Hike Trail I w+ ANOKA COUNTY RIVERFRONT w` <> REGIONAL PARK 57th Av.N. Issue 3: • rt`, ( �— Exercise Course Residential Acquisition «< Considerations \` } ` Issue 1: M is. Water BROOKLYN CENTER 53rd Av.N. o P n Treatment Plant MINNEAPOLIS y Trail Routing Issue # 2: " B I Mississip Courts/ � e PP / Park Boundary / I PJ• N• 49th Av.N. Q NORTH MISSISSIPPI 4 PARK (MPRB) Webber . . . . . . . . FRIDLEY Park .• ' (A CO.) O PJ, N.E. MINNEAPOLIS (HENNEPIN CO.) 42nd Av.N. Camden Bridge North Mlssiss/PPl Regional Park EXISTING DEVELOPMENT /ISSUES N 0 .5 1 1 Mile 4 DRAFT The study team determined that in order for the area being studied to function as a regional park or trail, it must at least provide a continuous trail con - nection across both bridges and along both banks of the river. Three basic issues emerged as the team began to study the possibilities of a circular trail route and other regional park recreational development. Issue No. 1. Minneapolis Water Treatment Plant Trail Routing A trail connection through the Minneapolis waterworks area should be developed in cooperation with the Minneapolis Water Department. Issue No. 2. Mississippi Courts/Park Boundary The Mississippi Courts were recently purchased by the Minneapolis Community Development Authority (MCDA), which is relocating residents (renters) and demolishing the 25 rowhouses constructed there. As the MCDA is considering developing the property, this plan must make a recommendation as to how much of the property is needed for trail and /or park development. The plan should state how much of the land is desirable for park purposes, how it should be acquired, and state where the proposed park boundary should be seta Issue No. 3. Residential Acquisition Considerations The residential area along Lyndale Avenue North extends from 51st Avenue to 57th Avenue North. The Minneapolis /Brooklyn Center line is at 53rd Avenue North. If a regional park or trail is to be developed, a portion or all of this property would have to be acquired and developed. The plan must address how much of the land is needed and how and when the land would be acquired. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING DOCUMENTS Since the east side of the study area already includes only an approved regional park and the waterworks, the following discussion will focus primarily on the west side of the study area. 5 J DRAFT Comprehensive Plans - Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.175 and 473.851 through 473.866), the Metropolitan Council reviews comprehensive plans prepared by local units of government in the Metropolitan Area. The Brooklyn Center comprehensive plan was reviewed and approved in 1981 and the City of Minneapolis comprehensive plan was reviewed and approved in 1982. The Brooklyn Center comprehensive plan identifies the zoning of land east of I -94 and south of 57th Avenue as residential (the motel on the north end of the property is a commerical establishment). The land north of 57th Avenue is referred to as "River Ridge Park," and zoned public open space (owned by Mn/DOT). The comprehensive,plan identifies a land use revision between Lyndale Avenue North and the river, anticipating that this area would eventually become public open space (the area between Lyndale Avenue North and I -94 would remain residential). The plan recognizes limited public access to the Mississippi River; "River Ridge Park" is the only public access Brooklyn Center has to Mississippi River shoreline. The plan recommends "River pidge Park" be-devel- oped with foot trails, picnic areas, and scenic view opportunities. The Minneapolis comprehensive plan identifies the North Mississippi Park area as public open space, the Mississippi Courts area as high- density residential and the area along Lyndale Avenue North as low - density residential. The plan recommends the provision of adequate facilities along the riverfront for pic- nics and other recreational opportunities. It further recommends that the Mississippi Courts area be developed for recreation if infeasible for high - density housing. The plan recognizes the mill ruins along Shingle Creek as a site with local historic significance. If the North Mississippi Regional Park Study /Master Plan results in proposed land use changes, the cities of Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis would have to submit amendments to their respective Comprehensive Plans to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. 6 DRAFT Critical Area Plans The unique regional and state significance of the Mississippi River in the seven - county Metropolitan Area was recognized when the river and adjoining corridor were designated as a state critical area by Governor's Executive Order (130) in 1976 following the recommendations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and Metropolitan Council. In 1979, the Council extended the critical area designation indefinitely. The purpose of the designation was to coordinate planning for the area to achieve the development of the river corridor as a regional multi- purpose resource, resolve land and water use conflicts, preserve and enhance natural, aesthetic, cultural and historical values for public use and protect environmentally sensitive areas. The Execu- tive Order contains standards and guidelines to be followed by local govern - ments in preparing river corridor plans and regulations. The standards require local river corridor plans to include environmental /scenic protection, land use, potential sites for local and regional parks and the potential location of a trail linking regional parks. The Executive Order also designates four types of use districts along the river corridor. The study area for the North Mississippi River regional park is. located in two use districts. The river corridor south of 49th Avenue.is designated urban diversified and the corridor to the north is designated urban developed. The urban diversified district provides for a diversity of com- mercial, industrial, residential and public uses of the lands, as well as the expansion of public access to and enjoyment of the river. The urban developed district emphasizes residential uses. Local Critical Area plans and regulations and amendments are reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and approved by EQB. Brooklyn Center has prepared a Critical Area plan which was reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and approved by EQB in 1979• The proposed Minneapolis Critical Area Plan and Regulation are under review by the Metropolitan Council. The Brooklyn Center Critical Area plan indicates that public access to the Mississippi River is quite restricted and limits public use and enjoyment of the resource. The plan recommends the development of the Minnesota Department 7 1 DRAFT of Transportation land south of the I -694 bridge as a park (River Ridge Park). The plan proposes a bicycle /pedestrian trail along Lyndale Avenue from the southern city boundary through the park and northward under I -694. A crossing along the I -694 bridge would connect with the trail in Fridley. The proposed Minneapolis Critical Area plan recommends a diversity of land uses including park and open space along a portion of the riverfront north of the Camden Bridge with nodes of high density and low density housing in the remain- ing areas. The plan proposes a pedestrian/bicycle trail generally along the river edge linking with the trail in Brooklyn Center. If the North Mississippi Regional nal Park Stud /Master Plan results in proposed PP gi y os P P land use changes along the river corridor, the cities would have to submit amendments to their respective Critical Area plans to the Metropolitan Council for review and to the EQB for its approval. Metropolitan River Corridors Study The Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee was created by the U.S. Con- gress in December 1980 to "examine methods by which federal, state, regional and local governments can cooperate to enhance the recreational opportunities" of the Mississippi, Minnesota, and St. Croix rivers within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The committee's final report (1986) makes several recom— mendations related to the long -term management of the Mississippi River, but does not make specific recommendations related to the North Mississippi Regional Park study area. Recommendations made in the final report that will relate to the overall development and use of the park include: That the U.S. Department of Interior designate the Mississippi River within the metropolitan area as the "Mississippi National River;" - that Congress create a "Mississippi River Coordination Organization" to develop and implement an integrated resource management program; 8 DRAFT that all responsible government agencies work cooperatively to meet federal and state water quality standards for fishable and swimmable waters in the Mississippi River by 1995; and that the Minnesota legislature direct the Mn/DOT to utilize federal highway funds to establish a segregated Great River Road fund. FEASIBILITY, ADVISORY GROUP /GENERAL PUBLIC CONCERNS, AND MAJOR ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS FEASIBILITY The law which mandates the Metropolitan Council to designate the park states the Metropolitan Council, ...shall, unless not feasible, promptly designate (the park) ... The current Metropolitan Development Guide - Recreation Open Space chapter (adopted 11 /21/85) defines regional parks as areas which provide diverse resources that support a wide range of outdoor recreation (see Appendix B). Selection criteria for regional parks essentially include: - A minimum of 100 acres (exceptions may be considered). - Access to recreation - quality water bodies. - Situated as close as possible to areas of high demand and distributed generally to serve the population of 2 -5 communities (at least 36,000 to 125,000 people). The study area includes about 308 acres, approximately 205 acres on the east bank and 103 acres on the west bank. There is ample access to recreation- quality water bodies (Mississippi River). The area is situated in an area of high demand with the potential to serve a population in excess of 230 peo- ple residing within five miles of the study area (see Regional Analysis, page 19). The east bank of the study area already includes a portion of a desig- nated regional park. The west bank has the potential to include a diversity of resources including upland hardwood areas, lowland /island riparian areas, marsh /shrubland areas and a historical /interpretive area (mostly in the North Mississippi Park area at this time). The west bank area also has the potential 9 DRAFT to provide a setting for several recreational opportunities (bike/ hike trail, shoreline fishing, small boat access, picnic area with shelters, open play areas). All of these factors indicate that the establishment of a regional Park in the study area is feasible. The 1985 legislation mandates the designation of a regional park in the study area. Study team members also considered the designation of a regional trail in this area, however, as demonstrated above, the study area does show poten- tial as a regional park (regional trails serve primarily as transportation routes between regional parks and park reserves). ADVISORY GROUP /GENERAL PUBLIC CONCERNS Staff Liaison Group concerns were generally in four central areas (the first three below follow the "major issues" numbers): Issue No. 1) Waterworks staff have shown a strong concern for public safety and security of the plant. They identified their current site needs and lands that were not needed for waterworks operations now or in the future. , Issue No. 2) MCDA staff have stated the MCDA has a major investment in the property and is considering soliciting office or light manufac- turing developers, although roughly 40 percent of the property is not developable and could be used as a trail connection. The MCDA will consider negotiations to establish the entire area as parkland. Issue No. 3) Brooklyn Center staff have stated that Brooklyn Center's compre- hensive plan designates the residential area east of Lyndale Avenue North to become Brooklyn Center parkland at some time in the future. The residential area west of Lyndale Avenue North is not designated to become parkland. 10 DRAFT Concern No. 4) Staff from the Mn /DOT are primarily concerned with integrating the concerns and proposed development within the North Mississippi Regional Park Study with the current upgrading and the reconstruction of the 1 -694 bridge (see Appendix C). Following a letter that was sent to all residents /owners within the study area (see Appendix D), there was strong representation from the property owners/ residents at subsequent Citizen Advisory Group meetings. Understandably, many property owners /residents were not in favor of their property being acquired for a regional park, although some owners indicated an interest in selling their property. Most residents /owners were anxious to learn when they would know what the final plan recommended for their property, and how soon the park would be established. Although representation of other segments of the general public at Citizen Advisory Group meetings has been minimal, several people attending the meetings spoke in favor of the concept of a regional park being established in this area. At the initial Citizen Advisory Group meetings (Jan. 15, 29, and Feb. 19), members discussed the entire park concept and related issues. A preliminary draft was developed by the study team and sent to the Citizen Advisory Group before the March 5 meeting. Three major areas of concern were raised by citizen advisory group members. 1. Members echoed the concern raised by many residents that recreational development in this area may damage the natural attributes of the site. In response, staff incorporated a development theme which is sensitive to the natural amenities of the area (see Development Concept, P. 36). 2. Some members felt that the initial draft emphasized acquisition too strongly in the first phases of implementation and suggested some develop- ment be incorporated along with top priority acquisition. Although the existing land base is limited, staff agreed that some development could be incorporated in the early phases of implementation, but only if it did not interfere with the first two priorities of acquisition -- willing sellers in the residential area and securing a corridor easement /purchase agreement with the MCDA. 11 DRAFT 3. A major topic of discussion was the residential acquisition considerations issue. Some advisory group members echoed the concerns of the property owners /residents, while others recognized that although parks are difficult to establish initially, they ultimately become assets to the greater com- munity. Most discussion related to the need for including the area west of Lyndale Avenue North in the park boundary. Study team members believed the area was needed to provide a viable regional park in this area. Several advisory group members agreed with the study team, stating the plan should represent a long term, "looking to the future" effort. On March 5, the Citizen Advisory Group adopted (by consensus) the recommenda- tions of the study team as they related to the three major issues: 1) develop P a trail through the Waterworks area; 2) acquire the entire Mississippi Courts area for park purposes; and 3) include all land between I -94 and the Missis- sippi River (Camden Bridge to the I -694 bridge) in the proposed park boundary. On April 16, the Citizen Advisory Group reaffirmed b ( consensus their r'Y F y ) po gi- tion by adopting a second draft of the plan (dated April 13, 1986). At this time, the study team anticipated that the normal review process would be followed, that is, that the implementing agencies would review the plan and address the concerns of the local units of government prior to submitting the plan to the Metropolitan Council. On May 22, however, the Metropolitan Council approved the following recommendation: That the Metropolitan Council delete the following land from consideration for inclusion in a regional park, trail or recreation area: Land on the west side of Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And, further, that the Metropolitan Council instruct its staff'to dis- continue the planning of said land for inclusion within a regional park, trail or recreation area. i i 12 sr , • DRAFT This action was based on the position of Brooklyn Center representatives (including the city manager and local school district) who opposed the inclusion of the west of Lyndale area in the proposed park boundary. MAJOR ISSUES RECOMMENDATIONS The remaining portion of this document will focus on the essential components of a regional park master plan. As discussed previously in this section, the study team believes the study area as described by the 1985 legislation is feasible as a regional park (see Feasibility, page 9, and Regional Analysis, page 20). The plan will recommend a park boundary, outline a park development concept, define operations, maintenance and public awareness responsibilities, and propose a capital improvement program. A summary of recommendations as they relate to the three major issues are: Issue No. 1� Minneapolis Water Treatment Plant Trail Routing The study team originally outlined two possible trail connection routes in the waterworks property area. One alignment was the best route in terms of recrea- tional use (adjacent to the riverbank), the other involved a route along East River Road until the alignment reaches Demars Sign Company, at which point it would be routed between the abandoned Marshall Avenue and East River Road to the Camden Bridge. After several discussions with the Staff Liaison Group, the study team recommends the East River Road alignment. At this time, this is the only feasible alternative because of public safety concerns (the waterworks operation uses large quantities of very toxic chemicals) and waterworks security considerations. Issue No. 2. Mississippi Courts /Park Boundary The study team recommends that the entire Mississippi Courts area be included in the park boundary and be acquired for park purposes. The office or light manufacturing development of 60 percent of this area would detract from the a DRAFT recreationists' perception of being in a parks and open space area, and would 0 compromise the integrity of a regional park setting. The stud team recommends Y mm uds- that the entire area be purchased or otherwise acquired q fired for regional park purposes. Issue No. 3. Residential Acquisition Considerations Originally, the study team recommended that all of the residential property between I -94 and the Mississippi River (Camden Bridge to I -694 bridge) even- tually be acquired for regional park purposes. Based on the action of the Metropolitan Council (see page 12), this plan recommends that the park boundary exclude the area west of Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd and 57th Avenues North from the park boundary. The park will therefore include approximately 87 acres: North Mississippi Park, the Mississippi Courts area, the area east of Lyndale Avenue North from 51st to 57th Avenues, and the Mn /DOT property from 57th Avenue to the I -694 bridge. The Recreation Open Space Development Guide /Policy Plan states that one of the selection criteria for a rpZional park is as follows: "Athough exceptions may be considered, a regional park site should contain a minimum of 100 acres." The study team believes the proposed 87 -acre park should be an exception to the 100 -acre minimum for the following reasons 1. As shown in the Regional Analysis, page 19, there is a high level of need in the North Mississippi Regional Park service area (approximately five miles) for the following regional park activities: picnicking, walking, boating and fishing. There is a moderate level of need for biking and nature study. Y 2. Over 234,000 people reside within five miles of the proposed park (this figure greatly exceeds the policy guidelines for establishing a regional park which is 36,000- 125 Even including the new facilities at Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park, the regional analysis demonstrates that the 234,000 people residing in this area are not adequately served by regional aienal park facilities. 14 1 P rl DRAFT 3. The park will connect to several trail systems, and have a direct connec- tion via the I -694 pedestrian crossing to the 140 -acre Anoka County River - front Regional Park situated across the Mississippi Rvier. 4. The park will provide access to an outstanding natural amenity in an area where access to the Mississippi River is limited. 5. Objective 2.9 of the Recreation Open Space Development Guide /Policy Plan states: "... Identify sites, prepare master plans and acquisition and development strategies for new regional parks in St. Paul and Minneapolis and the first -ring suburbs." If at any time the park boundaries are reduced (to include less than the Proposed 87 -acre park), the regional park designation should be reconsidered. i 15 DRAFT STUDY AREA/RESOURCES STUDY AREA The study area is bound by the,_Camden Bridge (south), the I -694 bridge (north), I -94 (west) and East River Road (east). The two major land uses within the study area on the east bank are Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park and the Minneapolis Waterworks. Both,are accessible from East River Road (Anoka County Highway 1). The Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park master plan, which includes discussion on land use and resources.g.was approved by the Metropolitan Council in 1980. The remaining,,portion of this section of the report will focus on the west bank of the study area. The Minneapolis portion of the west bank of the study area includes North Mississippi Park (operated by the MPRB and zoned as public open space), the Mississippi Courts area (currently zoned residential) and a small residential area (about 17 parcels) between 51st Avenue and 53rd Avenue North. The land immediately surrounding this portion of the study area is zoned industrial and commercial to the south of North Mississippi Park, and commercial /industrial to the west of North Mississippi Park (between I -94 and Lyndale Avenue). East of Lkndale Avenue is zoned residential, with public open space zoning at the adjacent Webber Park (operated.by MPRB). The Brooklyn Center portion of the west bank of the study area includes a resi- dential area (about 34 parcels between 53rd and 57th Avenue) and a thin strip of land between I -94 and the river extending from 57th Avenue to the I -b94 bridge. The thin strip of land is owned by the Mn/DOT, is leased to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and subleased to the City of Brooklyn Center which operates and maintains an entrance road and small boat access on the property. Immediate surrounding land use in Brooklyn Center is residential. The area is accessible from I -94 traveling north at the 49th Street exit and traveling south at the 53rd Street exit. The area is accessible from I -94 overpasses at 49th, 53rd, and 57th Avenues North. 16 DRAFT RESOURCES (west bank only) SOILS Soil surveys conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Con- servation Services, do not include specific information on areas of dense urban development in Hennepin and Anoka Counties. These documents recommend on -site investigation to determine soil characteristics in-areas such as the North Mississippi Regional Park study area. Soil borings made along the I -94 roadway indicate mostly black loam s and sandy loans. By occasional flooding, more organic soils can be expected adjacent to the Mississippi River. The soils in this area can provide adequate foundations for trail and facility construction, although sandy loams may be susceptible to erosion on steeply sloped areas when the vegetation is removed. VEGETATION /WILDLIFE Vegetation Vegetation is the least disturbed in two natural areas: North Mississippi Park and the Mn /DOT property. In these areas, lowland hardwoods dominate the over- story vegetation. Cottonwood and.boxelder dominate the area, with silver maple and willow interspersed along the river's edge. From Shingle Creek south to the railroad bridge mixed hardwoods occur including red oak, green ash, red maple, and basswood. Understory woody vegetation includes honeysuckle, red osier dogwood,_ currant, red- berried elder, hawthorn, buckthorn, smooth sumac, chokecherry, and blackberry. Remnants of a formal residential garden including bush honeysuckle and day lilies that date back to the 1800s can be found near the marshland in North Mississippi Park. A two -acre marsh is situated along the Mississippi River just south of the lime pit currently owned by the Mn /DOT. A storm sewer extending east from Lyndale Avenue North beneath I -94 helps to maintain this marsh area. 17 • . DRAFT Wildlife Wildlife is most abundant in the least- disturbed areas - -North Mississippi Park and the Mn /DOT property. Permanent residents include several small mammals (beaver, red squirrels, gray squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits) and amphibians asso- ciated with the riparian habitat. Seasonal or intermittent residents include songbirds such as cardinals, downy woodpeckers, black - capped chickadees, and several species of warblers. Waterfowl and shorebirds can be seen in the marsh area and open river area throughout the study area. Raptors such as great horned owls have been observed in the North Mississippi Park area. WATER RESOURCES /FISHERIES The Mississippi River is the major water body in the study area and dominates the site. The river is between 500 and 750 feet wide in most areas with a normal pool elevation of approximately 800 feet. The 100-year flood stage tage is 812.8 feet (the river rose to 811.9 feet in 1965). The most common fish species occurring in this stretch of the Mississippi River have been documented as follows: carp, black crappie, black bullhead, northern redhorse, channel catfish, and smallmout4 bass. Shingle Creek is a permanent stream situated in North Mississippi Park just north of the Camden Bridge. The source of water for Shingle Creek is Eagle and Bass Lakes in Maple Grove, several miles to the west. HISTORY North Mississippi Park is the main area that has historic elements and the potential for interpretation of those elements. Shingle Creek derives its name from a water - powered shingle mill that was built along the creek in the park area. The foundation of the mill, which was used in the mid- 1800s, is still intact as is the riveted boiler plate flume. Remnants of early settlement (house foundations) can also be found along the slopes to the north of this area. During the logging period from the 1850s to the early 1900s, log booms were held adjacent to the North Mississippi Park area. Huge iron rings fastened to pier logs can still be found along the riverbank. ° DRAFT REGIONAL ANALYSIS An important part of a regional park plan is an analysis of the needs that exist in the area served by the park. While recreation need is an elusive concept, with no absolute measures, several kinds of information provide a relative or indirect measure of need for parks. This section of the plan will consider population characteristics, the supply of natural resource - based recreation facilities in the immediate area, potential activity and facility demand at this park and public accessibility. Assuming the park is typical of other regional facilities in the urbanized part of the region, a primary service area with a radius of five miles will be used. This is shown on the regional context map (see page 20). POPULATION Table 1 shows pertinent data on the population within five road miles of the park. Over 230 people live within five miles. This greatly exceeds the 36,000- 125,000 service area population guidelines established for the regional Park system (see Appendix B Regional Recreation Open Space Development Guide/ Policy Plan Regional Park Definitions). The service area includes north Minneapolis and the first ring of northern suburbs. As such, it will lose population between 1980 and 2000. However, the population in the year 2000 will still be above the regional guideline. In terms of age structure, the major age groups in the area are young and middle -aged adults. The population structure will age over the next 20 years, what with loss of population and aging of the largest group - -the post -war baby boom. The young adult population is currently the dominant user rou in th g P e regional park system. Its members make up a larger percentage of a 8 P g park users than they do of the population in eneral. Middle-aged g adults use regional gional parks roughly in proportion to their presence in the population. Seniors tend not to use the parks in proportion to their population numbers. It seems that a regional park in this area would have a substantial primary user group at present and through the year 2000. Most facilities characteristic of regional 19 r j r o p t o � Z� 4 tip �� - �.'., s ■ PW � `a1 North MISSissi Regional P ark REGIONAL CONTEXT 0 10 Miles DRAFT parks would probably receive substantial use. After the year 2000, the more passive types of facilities would probably fit the population better as it turns middle -aged and then elderly. Concerning service to disadvantaged populations, the area contains a sub - stantial proportion of the region's racial minority population. The majority of these people reside at the southern edge of the service area. The median household income in 1979 was $19,446, or 95 percent of the regional median. The 41,000 Minneapolis households in the service area have a median income of about $14 9 500, substantially lower than the $22,600 median income of the remaining 65,000 households. In terms of location, the potential is there to serve several disadvantaged populations. However, the distribution of dis- advantaged people in the service area would not guarantee their being served simply by the location of the park. Special programs, facilities and publicity may be needed to realize the potential here. Table 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION WITHIN FIVE MILES OF NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK (1980 Data, Unless Otherwise Noted) Total population 234,032 Percent of Metropolitan Area population 12% Total population, 2000 207,633 Percent of 2000 Metropolitan Area population 9% Population 13 years of age and under 45,666 (20 %) Population 14 -19 years of age 26032 (11 %) Population 20 -34 years of age 66,997 (29 %) Population 35 -59 years of age 62 (27%) Population 60 years of age and over 33,228 (14 %) Percent of population in racial minorities 7% Percent of regional minority population 19% Median household income, 1979 $19,446 Regional median household income $20,654 21 • d DRAFT NEARBY RECREATION FACILITIES The need for a given park depends on the distribution of similar facilities in the area served by that park. In the case of a regional park, natural resource based recreation facilities should be considered. Table 2 presents pertinent data. Table 2 COMPARATIVE SUPPLY OF SELECTED RECREATION FACILITIES WITHIN FIVE MILES OF NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK North Mississippi Area Supply Regional Supply Per 1,000 Per 1,000 Facility Total People Total People Picnic areas with more than 10 tables - tables 525 2.2 7 9 622 3.8 Reservable picnic areas - shelters 21 0.1 215 0.1 Sw beaches - feet 1,555 6.6 24,321 12.2 Boat accesses - parking spaces 116 0.5 2 9 067 1.0 Bike trails - miles - 26.1 0.1 260.3 0.1 Walking paths - miles 32.7 0.1 394.7 0.2 Ski trails 15.8 0.1 362.8 0.2 The area served by North Mississippi is relatively poorly supplied with most of the facilities provided by the regional park system. This comparison includes existing facilities at local and regional parks as well as currently funded 22 a • • j DRAFT developments at regional parks. In addition to the existing Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park, other regional parks serving portions of the service area are: Coon Rapids Dam to the north, Long Lake and Como to the east, Central Mississippi Riverfront, Nokomis- Hiawatha and Minneapolis Chain of Lakes to the south, and Theodore Wirth, Clifton E. French and Eagle Lake to the west. There is a good amount of overlapping service provided by these parks. How- ever, only a small portion of the North Mississippi service area is served by more than two of them. RECREATION ACTIVITY DEMAND Two factors are used to judge the activity demand in an area served by a poten- tial park. First, is the area relatively well- served by the current distribu- tion of facilities in the region; and second, what kind of activities are of interest to the area's population and do they face any constraints in satisfying the interests. The Metropolitan Council uses results of its field surveys of recreational use to develop use forecasting models for several kinds of recreational facili- ties. When these models are applied to all existing facilites in the region, a pattern of service emerges for each kind of facility. The resulting pattern can be used to judge the level of demand for each facility in the service area of a potential park. The facilities analyzed are picnic areas, swimming beaches, boat launches, fish- ing accesses, campground and nature study areas. In general, the area served by this park received low scores in the analysis, that is, it is underserved for these kinds of facilities. However, the level of service varies by facil- ity. Facilities most lacking are those for fishing, boating, swimming and nature study. No part of this park's service area is served as well as the rest of the region for these kinds of facilities. On the other hand, the area 21 r DRAF is relatively well -off with respect to camping. Since it is located near the center of the metropolitan area, a number of existing and planned camping facilities provide service. The evaluation is mixed for hiking, walking and picnicking. Some parts of the service area are well- served, others are not. The level of service for walking paths is relatively low in the areas closest to the park, and becomes higher as one gets further away. Biking and picnicking show no discernible pattern. The Metropolitan Council has also collected information on leisure interests of the region's population. For the area served by the park, over 350 people were contacted in the 1983 survey of Leisure in the Twin Cities Area. Table 3 provides the results for the region as well as for the area served by North Mississippi Regional Park. The area is much like the rest of the region in terms of interests. Of the typical regional park activities, only beach swim- ming and non -power boating have different interest levels here than region - wide. Concerning unmet interests, the pattern here is almost identical to the rest of the region. It is interesting to note that several of the activities where less than half of the interest is satisfied are those typical of regional parks --non -power boating, biking, crosscountry skiing, etc. A quarter or more of the adult population in this area has unsatisfied interests for several typical regional park activities. PUBLIC ACCESSIBILITY Accessibility will be viewed from three perspectives - -car, bus and bike/ pedestrian. Cars will be able to gain access to the park from several four - lane highways. I -94 parallels the park on the west, with exits at Dowling Avenue on the south and 49th -53rd Avenues at the center of the park. Access across the freeway from north Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center is provided approximately every four blocks from Camden north to the I -694 bridge. On the east side, Anoka County Road 1 (East River Road provides access P to the area at 37th Avenue Northeast and the main entrance to Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park at approximately 49th Avenue Northeast. The park boundary is generally defined by major roads, with several opportunities to exit these roads conveniently and get into the parka 24 DRAFT s In discussing bus access, it should be noted that few people have shown an interest in getting to regional parks by bus. This is due to a variety of factors -- mostly scheduling and route problems, but also the difficulty of carrying any kind of equipment on a bus. The North Mississippi park area is served by three MTC bus routes. Route 8 provides the most frequent service, going between downtown Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center throughout the day, seven days a week. Convenient access is provided to the park from stops at Camden and 45th and Lyndale Avenue North. North of 45th Avenue, the route runs parallel to the park on Bryant Avenue (4 -6 blocks away) and Humboldt Avenue (10 -12 blocks away). Additional bus service is provided by Route 26 (West River Road) and 27 (East River Road). Route 26 runs on weekdays and Saturdays and uses I -94 as it travels past the park. However, it comes up from the freeway at the I -94 -53rd Avenue exit, thereby providing service to the park on all but a few morning and evening express runs Route 27 provides service seven days a week on the east side of the park, with stops at- several points. For all bus routes, the park is wi iin Fare Zone 1 the least expensive of all zones. Trail access for bikes and pedestrians is available at several points. On the west, access is provided under I -94 along Shingle Creek at Camden. This trail connects to the Shingle Creek trail system in Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park and to the Minneapolis "Grand Round" parkway system. There is also a spur under the freeway up to Lyndale Avenue at approximately 45th Avenue North. Otherwise, access is provided on sidewalks and the 49th Avenue bridge in Minneapolis and along city streets and the "bridge" over the freeway at 53rd and 57th Avenues in Brooklyn Center. On the east, bike and pedestrian access will be provided by a pathway beneath the I -694 bridge from the Island of Peace portion of Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park. This will eventually connect to the Rice Creek and East River Road trail systems in Anoka County. On the south end of the park, pathways would connect with St. Anthony,Parkway, which provides separate bike and walk- ing paths. The 44th Avenue Northeast bridge will provide access to the east side of the park from the community beyond the Burlington Northern switchyard. A signalized intersection rovides for bike d P an pedestrian crossing where the bridge meets East River Road. �S r i _ r DRAFT CONCLUSIONS The information discussed above leads to the following conclusions about North Mississippi Regional Park. There is more than adequate population to justify a regional park in this area. Other parks on the fringe of the area do not provide an adequate level of service to the people living in the service area of this park. The park is relatively well- situated to serve disadvantaged populations, but will probably require special effort to achieve its potential here. The park is very accessible by car, bus, bike and foot. It may be the most accessible park in the regional system. Facility demand for the park is as follows, based on supply in the area, relative level of service provided at present, leisure interests and other factors: Picnic areas: A high level of need. The supply in this area is half the regional average. The area adjacent to the park receives relatively poor service at present. Although the area has only a little less than the average regional supply of reservable group areas, there is little in the way of large facilities of this kind on the west side. The east side is better off, with facilities at Rice Creek and the new Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park. Swimming beaches: A moderate level of need. Although the supply is half the regional average, unsatisfied interest is only moderate and there is a pool at Webber Park already. Biking trails: A moderate level of need. The area has.about the same level of service as the rest of the region, but there is a major unsatisfied interest in the area. The major reason for having bike paths in this park is the potential for connecting several other areas. 26 •w DRAFT Walking paths: A high level of need. Supply in this area is about half the regional average. The pattern of service from existing facilities is mixed within the srvice area. Interest is high, with a good portion of it unsatisfied. As with biking, the major need is for a connection to several other systems. Boating: A high level of need. The area has about half the regional average for boat access capacity and has limited usable water surface. The level of service for boating is uniformly low throughout the area. Interest is moderate, with a large portion of it going unsatisifed. ..,Fishing: A high level of need. There are few fishable bodies of water in the service area. The level of service provided by existing facilities in the region is very few. Fishing is a high- interest activity, with a moderate amount of that interest unsatisfied. Camping: A low level of need, but mostly because of the area where the park is located. The service area has no campgrounds, but it will be relatively well- served by campgrounds that are located in parks on the fringe of the region. Nature study: A moderate level of need. The area has one nature center (Springbrook) and two nature interpretive areas (Butler Gardens and Palmer Lake). The service level from existing facilities is low. However, the level of interest is not high, particularly for the kinds of activities characteristic of a formal nature center facility. Overall, there is a moderate to high level of need for most of the typical regional park facilities. The primary need is for boating, picnicking and walking facilities, with a secondary need for swimming, biking and fishing facilities. 27 DRAFT Table 3 LEISURE IN THE TWIN CITIES AREA ADULT ACTIVITY INTERESTS - OVERALL AND UNSATISFIED Percent Percent with Interested Unmet Interests North North Mississippi Mississippi Service Service Activity Metro Area Metro Area 1. Talking, visiting 94 92 14 13 2. Going out 92 91 23 23 3. Listening (TV, radio, etc.) 92 92 6 6 4. Reading 88 86 16 19 5. Travel 87 83 38 36 6. Walking (neighborhood) 84 83 18 18 ** 7. Picnicking 82 86 23 26 ** 8. Visiting zoos 79 80 27 32* ** 9. Walking (natural areas) 78 74 32 30 10. Shopping, browsing 75 74 12 10 11. Visiting historic sites 71 69 31 33 ** 12. Visiting conservatory 68 66 28 27 ** 13. Swimming (beach) 68 63* 24 21 14. Cooking 67 66 12 11 15. Attending performances 66 60* 31 31 16. Gardening 64 62 20 22 17. Attending sports events 62 57* 23 22 18. Biking (neighborhood) 62 61 21 21 19. Playing table games 61 60 14 10 ** 20. Fishing 60 61 24 24 ** 21. Camping 60 56 28 24 22. Exercise, fitness 55 55 23 25 23. Casual sports 54 55 15 16 ** 24. Boating (non - power) 52 47* 29 27 ** 25. Biking (natural areas) 52 53 28 29 26. Clubs, church groups 50 48 12 11 27. Swimming (pools) 50 55* 20 19 28. Bowling 47 45 18 15 29. Photography 46 44 16 17 30. Performing arts 46 43 21 22 ** 31. Sledding, tobogganing 40 40 18 18 ** 32. Skiing (cross - country) 38 35 23 24 ** 33• Nature study (informal) 37 33 15 15 34. Racquet sports 37 34 19 17 • ** 35. Boating (power) 37 35 15 13 28 . • f DRAFT Table 3 LEISURE IN THE TWIN CITIES AREA ADULT ACTIVITY INTERESTS - OVERALL AND UNSATISFIED (Continued) Percent Percent with Interested Unmet Interests North North Mississippi Mississippi Service Service Activity Metro Area Metro Area 36. Needlework 37 38 11 10 37. Shopwork 13 13 38. Team sports 34 31 13 12 39. Jogging, running 34 34 12 16 40. Golf 31 28 15 15 41. Horseback riding 31 32 23 24 42. Pool, billiards 30 26 12 11 43. Animal training 29 28 9 9 44. Skiing (downhill) 27 25 15 15 45. Ice skating (non- hockey) 26 23 14 11 46. Studio arts 25 25 14 16 47. Hunting 24 26 8 10 48. Collecting 24 21 7 6 49. Electronic games 21 22 4 6 50. Rollerskating 21 22 11 13 51. Shooting sports 19 19 9 10 * 52. Snowmobiling 18 21 9._._ ___ 11 * 53. Nature study (programs) 12 11 8 6 54. Recreational flying 12 11 8 $ 55. Adventure sports 12 12 8 8 56. Martial arts 11 11 6 5 57. Racing 10 10 5 5 58. Playing ice hockey 9 6 4 3 Significant differences between the overall metro population and North Mississippi Service Area. Activities generally provided in regional parks. _ Underlined percentages are for activities where more than half of those interested are unsatisfied. 29 DRAFT PARR BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP There are seven different property ownership types within the study area. Please refer to the Ownership Map, page 31, when reviewing the following ownership descriptions. Anoka County. This 60 -acre parcel is a portion of Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park, owned by Anoka County and operated by the Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department. City of Brooklyn Center. The city has acquired three small parcels adjacent to the Mississippi River between 53rd and 57th Avenues. A sewer lift station is situated on one of the parcels. City of Minneapolis, Public Works Department. The Minneapolis Waterworks is operated on this 142 -acre parcel, providing water to Minneapolis area residents. Minneapolis Community Development Agency. The MCDA owns the 10 -acre Mississippi Courts area. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The MPRB owns and manages the 46- acre North Mississippi Park area. The north end of this area is currently owned by the Mn /DOT (lime sludge pit), but will be deeded to MPRB during the summer of 1986. Minnesota Department nt of Transportation. on. Mn DOT owns land 'n p p / 1 Brooklyn Center between 57th Avenue North and the I -694 bridge (approximately 20 acres). In addition, they own several highway right -of -way parcels adjacent to I -94 and 694, and several narrow strips of land along the Mississippi River for stormwater runoff (the land at the end of 53rd Avenue and 55th Avenue are examples). 30 i Study Area Boundary , C Anoka County City of Brooklyn Center I - 694 ® City of Minneapolis ' Public Works / (Waterworks) , ® Minneapolis Community / m • Development Agency ANOKA COUNTY a � • Minneapolis Park and Q RIVERFRONT Recreation Board ; REGIONAL PARK ® Minnesota De pt. of � • Transportation 57th Av.N. 1 Private op L BROOKLYN CENTER o• 53rd Av.N. 1 MINNEAPOLIS 9 O I o' P - - -- 49th Av.N. XX h NORTH h _ MISSISSIPPI PARK j a , Webber t° FRIDLEY Park ' ( C O.) N.E. MINNEAPOLIS c+ (HENNEPIN CO.) 0 42nd Av.N. Camden Bridge F Mississippi Regional Park NERSHIP N 1 0 .5 1 Mile j1 DRAFT Private Residences and Businesses. The limit of residential development within the study area extends from 51st Avenue North in Minneapolis to 57th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. All residences are situated along Lyndale Avenue North. In Minneapolis, there are 17 privately owned parcels of land. All are situated on the east side of Lyndale Avenue North (the triangle on the west side of Lyndale Avenue North is highway right -of -way owned by Mn /DOT). Most of the parcels have single family homes on them; two have apartment buildings. There is one small TV repair business in this area (rental). The size of the area is approximately four acres. In Brooklyn Center, there are 34 privately owned parcels of land. Twelve are east of Lyndale Avenue North, 14 are west of Lyndale Avenue North, and 8 are on both sides of the road. Most of the parcels have single family homes on them; there is one motel and at least 2 four- plexes in the area. The size of the area is approximately 23 acres (roughly 16 acres west of Lyndale and 7 acres east of Lyndale.) There are two private businesses owned and operated within the study area on the east side of the Mississippi River (both are in Anoka County). Both are situated along East River Road and abut the waterworks property on three sides. George's In Fridley is a restaurant /bar and Demar's Sign Company is a sign manufacturing firm. The size of these two business parcels is approximately three acres. PROPOSED BOUNDARY The 1985 legislation mandates that the Metropolitan Council designate the area on the east and west banks of the Mississippi River (between Camden and I -694) as a regional park. On the east bank, however, there are two major landowners and land uses- -the Minneapolis Waterworks and Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park. The Minneapolis Waterworks serves a public function and moving this operation is not a feasible alternative at the present time. It is feasible, however, to construct a trail connection through the waterworks property to insure a continuous trail route. The Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park 32 DRAFT master plan was approved in 1980, development was recently completed, and the park will open in the spring of 1986. This regional park should retain its current boundaries and name, but will be connected to and function as an integral part of the North Mississippi Regional Park. Development at Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park is outlined on page 36. The proposed boundary for North Mississippi Regional Park will follow the study area boundary on the west bank of the river except for the residential area west of Lyndale Avenue North in Brooklyn Center (see Proposed Development Map, page 44). It includes the present North Mississippi Park, Mississippi Courts, land east of Lyndale Avenue North between 51st and 57th Avenues, and the Mn /DOT property between 57th Avenue and the I -694 bridge (approximately 87 acres). A connecting boundary will encompass the waterworks property and cross both bridges to connect Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park with North Mississippi Regional Park. The three implementing agencies involved in this study must work cooperatively to insure the two parks and trail connections between them function as a mutually compatible recreation area (see Operations and Maintenance, page 45). ACQUISITION PRIORITIES /PHASING This plan recommends the following five acquisition priorities (in order): 1. Any residential properties currently for sale east of Lyndale Avenue North between the 51st Avenue and 57th Avenue (all properties east of Lyndale Avenue North as they become available by willing sellers will remain a top priority for any available funds). 2. A corridor easement on the MCDA property, with an agreement for purchasing the remainder of the property at some time in the future. 3. Residential properties east of Lyndale Avenue North (both Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center). 4. The remainder of the MCDA purchase agreement. 33 DRAFT 5. Properties in Anoka County as needed for the trail corridor through the waterworks property (the study team recommends fee title purchase). Should essential acquisition properties be identified, consideration should be given to making their acquisition a higher priority. In addition to these five acquisition priorities, the study team recommends the eventual fee title purchase of the Mn/DOT land between 57th Avenue and the I -694 bridge. The acquisition priorities outlined above reflect the overall acquisition recommendations of this plan, which are to: 1. Set a goal of acquiring properties as expeditiously as possible. 2. Stress the purchase of properties that are available by willing sellers over an extended period of time. Residents should be aware that they have -- a "willing buyer" to purchase their property (relocation expenses are also eligible for reimbursement through the regional grant program) when they are ready to sell. 3. Utilize alternative acquisition techniques when applicable that include right of first refusal on properties that become available for sale, stipu- lated terms of occupancy that allow the owners to sell their property and live there for a specified period of time, and life tenancy, which allows the owner to sell their property yet live there until the time of their death. Acquisition and development implementation must be integrated and accomplished in phases. In the case of North Mississippi Regional Park, some acquisition must take place before much of the development phasing can begin. - This plan recommends that available funds be used primarily for acquisition during the first two priority steps (through the corridor easement and purchase agreement with MCDA). A more detailed discussion of acquisition and development phasing can be found in the Capital Improvement Program, page 49. 34 , v DRAFT INTERIM STEWARDSHIP All structures on properties which are purchased will be salvaged or razed and removed immediately. Anticipated revenues from salvage should cover site clean- up and restoration expenses., The implementing agency which has jurisdiction over the acquired area should be responsible for sightly upkeep and maintenance until development begins. 35 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT INTRODUCTION Since the main area in which development is proposed is within the proposed North Mississippi Regional Park boundary on the west side of the river, the majority of discussion in this section of the plan will deal with development in that area. Although this area includes approximately 87 acres, it is nearly 2.8 miles long with an average width of less than 300 feet. The types of recreational development which can be provided within a linear corridor this narrow are limited. This linear area is most conducive to trail development and the provision of water- accesses (both shoreline and boat access). In addition, all types of recreational development (picnic areas, shelters, open play areas, etc.) will be enhanced by the view of the Mississippi River. The regional - analysis (page 19) outlines the types of recreational needs that can be demonstrated in this area. The developments outlined in this section have been formulated to meet many of these needs. The Citizen Advisory Group and members of the general public attending their meetings expressed a concern for the preservation of the natural aspects of this area. Study team members agreed that the development concept for this park should stress maximizing the natural attributes and potential wildlife habitat of the area. This plan recommends that all development be designed so as to be compatible with the natural resources and that the restoration of resources and wildlife habitat be stressed in the overall development of the park. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Existing recreational development on the east bank is scheduled to open Spring, 1986 at Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park. Development includes: - Entrance Road, Parking Areas, Restrooms Two Picnic Shelters (reservable) - Open Field Game Area - Exercise Course - Small Boat Access - Bike /Hike Trail (I -694 bridge to Waterworks boundary) DRAFO Existing recreational development on the west bank is limited to the north and south end of the study area. The Mn/DOT property adjacent to the I -694 bridge has a relatively undeveloped boat access and unpaved parking area (operated under a lease arrangement by the city of Brooklyn Center). At the south end of the study area is North Mississippi Park, owned and operated by the MPRB. Development includes a boat access with paved parking lot, a connecting trail which runs from the boat access beneath the Camden Bridge to Shingle Creek where it follows a series of pedestrian bridges over Shingle Creek under I -94 to Webber Park. A pedestrian trail access to the North Mississippi Park area is provided beneath I -94 at 45th Avenue North. A paved trail currently extends from the intersection of 45th Avenue and Lyndale Avenue North to the North Mississippi Park area. The majority of North Mississippi Park is undeveloped and a few portions are relatively undisturbed. RECREATION MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES - To provide a regional recreational area that meets the open space pa e recreational needs of metropolitan area residents. - To develop the park stressing the natural attributes of the site including the enhancement and restoration of the vegetation and associated wildlife habitat. - To provide and maintain a multi- purpose trail connection that will circulate across both bridges and be connected along both banks of the Mississippi River. - To provide a park that utilizes the diverse resources available to support a variety of recreational opportunities. - To provide trail connections to several adjacent trail systems, both municipal and regional. - To provide u p blic access to an outstanding natural amenity, both shoreline access and boat access. 37 DRAFT To provide regional recreation open space opportunities for disadvantaged populations. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In the following action plan, please refer to the Proposed Development map, page 44. The actions are organized from north to south on the west side of the river, with the SHRPD implementing actions 1 -4 and the MPRB implementing actions 5 -9C. Action 9D will be implemented by Anoka County and /or the MPRB. Action 1 . Provide a west side touchdown facility from the I -694 trail crossing and an underpass trail connection beneath the I -694 bridge to the north. The pedestrian trail crossing which will be included in the 1986 -89 reconstruc- tion of the I -694 bridge may not include "touchdown" facilities from the bridge to the ground. This plan recommends that the touchdown facility be provided as a part of bridge reconstruction. As this facility will be performing a trans- rlortation function, Mn/DOT should consider funding its construction. During the reconstruction, a trail underpass area should be provided below the I -694 bridge to accommodate a multi- purpose treadway connection from North Missis- sippi Regional park to the other.side of,I -694. This trail will eventually connect with the Shingle Creek Municipal Trail and the North Hennepin Regional Trail. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost X Action 2. Eliminate Brooklyn Center Boat Access. The current boat access in North Mississippi Park will be upgraded to accom- modate larger boats as part of this plan (it is located south of the Camden Bridge - the northern most point of dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers). Five miles north of the North Mississippi access is River Municipal Park (in Brooklyn Park); the current Brooklyn Center access is halfway between these accesses. Directly across the river from the Brooklyn Center access, in Anoka 38 a DRAFT County Riverfront Regional Park, is a new small boat access scheduled to open Spring, 1986. The Brooklyn Center boat access is a duplication of service and should not be included in North Mississippi Regional Park development. The cost of this action is primarily to close the access, remove any ramp pieces and re- vegetate the area. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost % Action 3 . Develop limited parking, shore fishing, and trailside picnicking areas. The area of .Mn /DOT property north of 57th Street would accommodate a limited amount of development including an entrance road, parking, shore fishing and trailside picnicking areas. This action should be developed in coordination with the elimination of the Brooklyn Center boat access (see Action 2, above). Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost R Act_. Construct a bike /hike trail from the 1 -694 touchdown (see Action 1.) to 53rd Avenue North. The separated bike /hike trail should basically follow the riverbank yet provide safe bike /hike travel the entire route. This action can only be implemented following acquisition of the residential area east of Lyndale Avenue North. Prelimi,.ary analysis of the area between Lyndale Avenue North and 53rd -57th Avenues suggests that there is enough land base to accommodate such a trail. There may be one or two areas that require stabilization prior to trail con- struction, and there may be a limited area where there is a need to combine the bike /hike treadways. The trail width should be developed so as to function as a service road in more remote areas (near the 1 -694 bridge). Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost % 39 DRAFT Action 5 . Construct a bike /hike trail from 53rd Avenue to the Camden Bridge. The separated bike /hike trail should be similar in design and appearance to the connecting trail outlined in Action 4. The design of this section of trail must take into consideration three areas- -the current residential area south of 53rd Avenue, the Mississippi Courts area, and the North Mississippi Park area. It is not expected that this development can take place until the properties in this area have been purchased. The trail alignment will pass through the existing residential area (Lyndale Avenue North and the service road entrance at 51st should be eliminated) and into the recreational node situated off of 49th Avenue (see Action 6). It will then pass near a marsh /lowland area and into the existing North Mississippi Park to the Camden Bridge. The trail should take advantage of several high vista points in the North Mississippi Park.area and provide connections to the existing trails at 45th Avenue, Shingle Creek, the Camden Bridge touchdown and the boat access south of the Camden Bridge. As part of this action, limited historical restoration and interpretive signing should be provided in the Shingle Creek mill /flume area (see History, page 18). Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost X X X Action 6 . Develop a park entrance at 49th Avenue and a recreational node between the 47th Avenue and 51st Avenue areas. The extent of this action depends on how much of the MCDA (Mississippi Courts). area becomes available for park purposes. An entrance road at 49th Avenue North should be provided into the 47th to 51st Avenue North area which will be developed (depending on available land) to accommodate: parking, restrooms, a picnic area with shelter, an open play area and shoreline fishing. The trail developed in Action 5 should be integrated into the site design. 40 f r , DRAFT The area between 47th and 53rd Avenues should undergo a major resource restor- ation effort as part of the planned recreational development. Restoration should include site grading and preparation throughout the area (the current lime pit area, Mississippi Courts, and Lyndale Avenue North to the Minneapolis city line) as well as revegetation and enhancement of the associated wildlife habitat. I If the agreement with the MCDA allows, and funds are available after acquisi- tion priorities 1 and 2 are satisfied, part of the implementation should be moved to phase 3 (see CIP, page 49). Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost X* X * If the agreement with MCDA allows. Acton 7. Provide a trail touchdown facility from the Camden Bridge to the existing North orth Mississippi Park area. When the Camden Bridge was built, the MPRH_requested a helix -type ramp touch- down facility from the sidewalk on the bridge to the parkland below. Concrete steps were provided, however, some type Hof ramp would accommodate not only hikers but bikers as well. The City of Minneapolis Public Works Department P nt should reconsider constructing the touchdown facility now that a regional park has been established in the area. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost X Action 8 . Upgrade and improve boat access south of the Camden Bridge. The existing boat access should be upgraded to accommodate larger boats. The Army Corps of Engineers dredges north to the Camden Bridge. This facility is Just below the bridge, providing access to the deeper waters to the south. The 41 • DRAFT current design of the facility should be reconsidered and improved, if possi- ble. Boaters have stated the position of the present ramp facility is situated so boats are immediately caught by a strong current as they are launched or trailered. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost % Action 9. Provide trail connections to the south and east from the North Mississippi Park area. The following trail connection developments are organized into 4 Actions --9A, 9B, 9C and 9D. 9A. Provide a trail connection south of the boat launch area beneath the railroad bridge to eventually connect with Central Mississippi Regional Park. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost R 9B. Assess the appropriateness of the sidewalk on the Camden Bridge for anticipated uses (bike /hike) and volumes of use; construct additional trail developments if warranted. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost x 9C. Provide a trail connection to the St. Anthony Parkway Trail, possibly as on underpass below the Camden Bridge on the east bank of the river. Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL i Cost X 42 DRAFT 9D. Provide a trail connection through the Minneapolis neapolis Waterworks property between Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park and the Camden Bridge. The recommended alignment would be situated adjacent to East River Road within the Anoka County right -of -way or peripheral waterworks property to the sign company property at approximately 44th Avenue. At this point the alignment would run between East River Road and the abandoned Marshall Street roadbed (a berm may be created on the old roadbed to screen the lime ponds west of this area). At the Fridley/ Minneapolis line, the alignment would follow (although separated) 37th Avenue to the Camden Bridge. There has been some discussion related to routing the alignment near the river at this point, and placing an interpretive kiosk on the waterworks plant operation adjacent to the trail. Waterworks staff have indicated there is good potential for trail alignments on waterworks property between the sign company and the Camden Bridge (although there are currently some portions of the land being leased to the Anoka County Tree Trust and the city of Minneapolis Police- Canine Patrol Unit). Waterworks staff have also indicated that the city of Minneapolis may be interested in selling portions of existing waterworks property for the trail corridor. The study team recommends fee title purchase of all properties needed for the trail corridor. It is unclear at this time which properties will be needed to secure a trail alignment through the waterworks property. An estimate of costs relating to acquiring property for this purpose will be included in the Capital Improvement Program as a conditional consideration (see CIP, page 49). Either Anoka County and /or the MPRB will develop, operate and maintain this trail connection. • Phase 1 2 3 4 5 Beyond TOTAL Cost X 43 �■ Proposed Boundary a (West Bank only) •�� Connecting Regional Park / Boundary (1- 694 /Camden ••• •• 1-694 Bridges, Waterworks) r , '2 ••••• -• Proposed Trails .: E•••• Outside Trail Connections ® Trail Touchdowns. ' . / \ \� Proposed Recreational: Node m ANOKA COUNTY CIE Boat Access �► ;° RIVERFRONT ACTION 1 3 ' REGIONAL PARK Provide trail touchdown and underpass ti `:•' ACTION 2• 57th Av.N. Eliminate Brooklyn Center boat access ACTION 3: Develop limited facilities along river 9 BROOKLYN CENTER gi Av.N. � MINNEAPOLIS rj� I ACTIONS 4 and 5: Construct separated trail between 1 -694 and Camden Bridges ACTION 6: 6 P�• Develop entrance at 49th Ave, and 49th Av.N. recreational node between 47th and ) v 51 at Ave.s 1 • • • Q • y 9d y • • a i f • - Webber � ACTION 7: FRIDLEY _ _ Provide trail touchdown (A C O.) touchdown • N. E. ACTION 8 • • � O ••�� -4• MINNEAPOLIS C • P (HENNEPIN CO.) Upgrade /Improve boat access �'e� •.� �� r `b 9b ACTIONS 9a -d : 42nd Av.N. 7 • Camden �'•. 9 C Provide trail connections to south and east 8 Bridge' 9a i North Mississippi Regional Park PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 N 1 0 .g Mile 1 DRAFT OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PUBLIC AWARENESS PUBLIC SERVICES Within the proposed boundary and development areas, both Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center provide municipal sanitary sewer and water connections. These in- place provisions can be utilized for any park development. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The study area includes the legal boundaries of three areas for which three different regional park implementing agencies are responsible. The three agencies and their respective areas are: 1. Anoka County Parks and Recreation -- Responsible for developing, operating and maintaining Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park as outlined in the approved master plan (1980). Either Anoka County and /or the MPRB could develop, operate and maintain the trail connection in the Waterworks area. 2. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board --The MPRB is responsible for .developing, operating and maintaining the portion of the park including and extending north from North Mississippi Park to the Minneapolis city line at 53rd Avenue North. The MPRB may be involved in the development, operation and maintenance of the trail connection in the waterworks area 3• Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District --The SHRPD is responsible for developing, operating and maintaining the portion of the park between 53rd Avenue North and the I -694 bridge (the Brooklyn Center portion of the park). Due to the location of the site and its relatively small area, the SHRPD may seek to enter into an agreement with the city of Brooklyn Center to maintain the park area on a contractual basis. The three agencies must work cooperatively to insure compatible operation of the park. It is essential that the three operating authorities work together to establish a common set of rules and regulations to govern the public use of . r DRAF� this park area. A primary operational objective should be to coordinate and consolidate a management approach that will provide for a uniform operational practice which will be clearly understandable to the park users. Most recrea- tionists are not concerned with "who" is providing a recreational area, but they are concerned about the appearance and usability of the facility. PUBLIC AWARENESS When the initial park development is completed, the MPRB and SHRPD will include information on North Mississippi Regional Park in their respective brochures and related public information material. Anoka County Parks and Recreation will include information on North Mississippi Regional Park on their material which mentions Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park when appropriate. All three agencies will cooperate in making the public aware of the new park through the Metropolitan Council's regionwide public awareness program. s . 46 DRAFT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The capital improvement program (CIP) for North Mississippi Regional Park will include the prioritizing and phasing of all planned acquisition and develop- ment. Because of the number of residential properties and the related concerns outlined in this plan, acquisition of land from willing sellers g e s will be the first priority.. Following first st phases of top priority acquisition., acquisition and development phases will be integrated until the final phases of development begin. Capital improvement program priorities will therefore be: 1) Top Priority Acquisition 2) Initial Developments and Remaining Acquisition 3) Final Developments A detailed explanation of the acquisition priorities are included in the Park Boundary section of the plan (see page 4 and ar 3) a briefly summarized ummari y zed below. 1) Any residential ro erties as they P p e become Y available for sale east of Lyndale Avenue North (51st -57th Ave N) 2) • A corridor easement on the MCDA property 3) Residential properties east of Lyndale Avenue North 4) The remaining payment on the MCDA property 5) Acquisition needed for a Minneapolis waterworks trail Alignment Throughout the park planning process, study area residents attending the Citizen Advisory Group meetings expressed a concern for the timing of funding availability with the timing of residential properties coming up for sale. To alleviate this concern, the study team recommends that all available funds be first used for residential properties as they become available by willing sellers. Secondly, it is extremely important that a corridor easement and purchase agreement be negotiated with the MCDA. Following these two top priori - ties, preliminary development can begin, including a portion of Action 5 (trail construction from the Camden bridge to 45th Avenue North), and additional trail and recreation development (Action 6) as the agreement with MCDA allows. 47 DRAFIO If possible, the study team recommends that the initial $2 million be used to purchase properties currently available for sale by willing sellers (priority no. 1) to secure a corridor easement /purchase agreement with the MCDA (prior- ity no. 2) and develop a trail from the Camden Bridge to 45th Avenue North. 48 • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DRAFT Estimation of Costs Related to the Acquisition and Development of North Mississippi Regional Park (dollars in Acquisition (Prioritized) PHASE ( ) 1 2 -3 4 5 BEYOND TOTAL 1. East of Lyndale, For Sale % % x x 2. MCDA Corridor Easement x % X 3. East of Lyndale Ave. X x X g 4. Remaining MCDA Payment x x 5. Waterworks Trail X* x TOTAL x x x x X _x 3,350+ (estimate only) * Conditional - See Action 9D page 44. Development (PHASE) 1 2 3 4 5 BEYOND TOTAL 1. I -694 Touchdown & Underpass x % 2. Eliminate B.C. Boat Access x x 3.- Roadside Developments x 4. Construct B.C. Trail % X 5. Construct Mpls. Trail x X x x 6. One Entrance & Rea. Node x3 % x 7. Camden Bridge Touchdown % x 8. Upgrade, Improve Boat Access 3 x x 9A. Trail Connection South (west) x x 9B. Camden Bridge Improvements x x 9C. Trail Connection South (east) x x 9D. Waterworks Trail Connection % x TOTAL x X X x X x 3,250 (estimate only) *If the agreement with MCDA allows. TOTAL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT X X X x X % 6,600+ (estimate only) Note: The duration of each implementation phase is estimated to be 2 -4 years. 49 • N . P FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION DR Since 1974, the majority of regional park acquisition and development funding has been made through the Metropolitan Council's Regional Recreation Open Space program. The Council revises the capital improvement program for the entire regional system every biennium. Projects outlined in approved master plans for all regional park components are considered for funding on the basis of their contribution to the goals and objectives of the Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan. Regional park acquisition and development can also be funded through other sources. Funds available from implementing agency budgets and funding sources solicited by the implementing agencies (such as federal Great River Road funds for part of the development at Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park or the recent solicitation of private funding for work on the Como Regional Park Conservatory) are often used. Currently, regional system capital improvement ro ram project funds P 8 P j are com- mitted through fiscal year (FY5 1987. The $500,000 appropriated and additional $1.5 million in interest earnings designated for this project in 1985 legis- lation will not be available until sometime during FY 1987 (see Introduction, page 1). Funding beyond FY 1987 is contingent upon several factors, one of which is the development of the next regional biennial capital improvement program (FY 1988 -89). The Council has prepared (as part of its Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan) a capital improvement program over the next 5 bienniums (to FY 1996). The legislation which mandated the Council to designate North Mississippi Regional Park (if feasible) was passed in June, 1985 the same time that the most recent Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan and 5- biennium capital improvement program was nearing completion. Therefore, the acquisition and development of North Mississippi Regional Park is not included in the current 5 biennium capital improvement program. If a master plan for North Mississippi Regional Park is approved by 1987, it will be eligible for inclusion in the regional system capital improvement program at that time. 50 DRAFT The $2 million designated for this project should be used primarily for top priority acquisition as outlined in this section of the plan. Funds available for the remaining steps of plan implementation will most likely be through the regional grants program. The North Mississippi projects will be considered for funding on the basis of their contribution to the goals and objectives of the Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan and the priorities within the entire regional park system. SA3876- PHOPNI 6.13.86 . s 51 APPENDICES t 52 t APPENDIX A. NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK STUDY SCHEDULE Updated, 4.3.86 (Anticipated) Date Action /Steps June 20 1985 - Legislative bill requiring the Metropolitan Council to designate North Mississippi Regional Park passed. August- September - Study team formed from staff appointments by MPRB, SHRPD and the Anoka County Board. Sept. 24 & Oct.8 - Study team meets, adopts work plan and citizen advisory group structure. Oct. 28 Metropolitan Council staff meet with sponsoring legislators. Nov. 19 - Study team meets to consider MPRB proposal involving study team /citizen advisory group change. Dec. 2 - Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission approves proposed change including appointment of Commissioner Barbara Johnson as chair of the citizen advisory group. Dec. 3 - Study team informed of commission decision. - Deadline for appointments set (Jan. 10, 1986) and next study team meeting planned. Dec. 17 - Study team meets. Jan. 9, 1986 - Study team meets with Barbara Johnson. Jan. 14-15— - Study team conducts two meetings; one with staff i liaison group and one with the citizens advisory group. Jan. 2 p 3 - Study team meeting. Press release inviting public issued and all residents /owners in study area notified of 1/29 and 2/19 meetings. Jan. 29 - Citizen advisory group /public meeting. Feb. 3 and 13 - Two study team meetings. Develop draft between Feb. 3 and March 5 meeting. Feb. 19 - Citizen advisory group /public meeting. Feb. 26 - Study team meeting. Mail draft or issue at March 5 meeting. March 5 - Citizen advisory group /public meeting. March 7 -12 - Draft mails March 17 -21 ng to Webber Library, Legislators, etc. Staff Liaison Group meetin P g March 26 & April 16 - Citizen advisory group /public meetings. - Inform public that copies of the final report will be available in May at Webber Library. April 16 -30 - Adcept input from community policy boards (presenta- tions as needed), various meetings and public; incorporate into draft as appropriate.May 1 - Develop final study /master plan; mail to advisory groups and - Webber Library and request acceptance/ adoption by official resolution from MPRB, SHRPD and Anoka County. May 1 -30 - Review comments, resolutions.. June 1 -30 - Present study /master plan along with planning process and resolutions to Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Metropolitan Systems Committee and the Metropolitan Council. 53 APPENDIX B. METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE - RECREATION OPEN SPACE CHAPTER REGIONAL PARK AND REGIONAL TRAIL DEFINITIONS Regional Parks , x Regional parks principally provide diverse resources that support a wide range of outdoor recreation. Selection criteria for regional parks include the following: Sites should contain a diversity of resources, either natural or artificial, in an adequate space. Two hundred to 500 land acres have been found to be sufficient. Although exceptions may be considered, a regional park site should contain a minimum of 100 acres. Access to recreation- quality water bodies is important. - Sites should be selected as close as possible to areas of high demand, be adequate in number and distributed generally so as to serve the population of three to five communities. A community is defined as three to five neighborhoods, each containing 4,000 to 5,000 people. - Site selection should also be based on: 1. Recreational needs, as measured by: Council research, location with respect to target populations, and relationships to other system units. 2. Recreational site quality, as measured by: the presence or absence of outstanding resources, the ability to provide a wide range of natural resource- related recreation opportunities, and the ability to meet regional park size limits. 3• Implementation potential, as measured by: site availability, potential for loss of site quality, implementing agency interest, and other local agency and citizen interest. Regional Trail Corridors Regional trail corridors provide for recreation trail activities in linear resources, performing a recreational transportation function connecting and providing access to regional park sites. Selection criteria include the following: - Corridors may follow natural or man -made features to accommodate a variety of recreational travel modes along linear resources of high quality. - Corridors are located where analysis shows high potential usership, generally near major population centers and where they will link metropolitan recreation open space system components. 54 Implementation (development and management) criteria include: - A major direction is to provide safe and enjoyable recreation travel opportunity. - A major direction is to provide multi -mode and multi- season opportunity for such typical recreational trail uses as hiking, biking, ski touring, horseback riding and snowmobiling. Other travel modes may be appropriate. Limited use corridors are possible where physical constraints make a full range of use impossible. Use should be controlled for three reasons: to stay within carrying capacities, to ensure compatibility of uses with each other and with surroundings, and to provide consistency of trail uses throughout the regional system. - Use by specific mode should begin and end at regional trailhead facilities, or at comparable trailhead facilities when the trail ends in a state or federal recreation system component or in connections to local trail systems. SA3876 /PHOPNI 55 o 0 Metropolitan Council APPENDIX C. MN /DOT CORRESPONDENCE 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets lljy St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Te►ephone (612) 291 -6359 �tN ctT� February 3, 1986 William Crawford, District Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation District 5 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Dear Mr. Crawford: I am writing to inform you of a new regional park which is being planned jointly by a study team comprised of staff from the Metropolitan Council, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Under the provisions of the Laws of Minnesota 1985 (see enclosure), the new North Mississippi Regional Park will be situated on both banks of the Mississippi River between the Camden Bridge in northeast Minneapolis to the Interstate 694 bridge in Brooklyn Center - Fridley. The study team is planning to complete their park study /master plan by July 1, 1986. We understand that the I694 bridge is scheduled to be reconstructed beginning Spring, 1986 Project manager Robert Brown will.be involved in the North Mississippi Regional Park planning process as a member of the staff liaison group advising the park plan study team. One of the main functions of the new park will be to provide trail connections to the regional trails and parks in this area. We understand the reconstruction of the 1694 bridge will include a pedestrian trail crossing. This development will be an integral component of overall park development. As this park will be bound on the east by East River Road and the west by Interstate 94 the most feasible trail connections to the north would be as underpasses beneath I694 on both banks of the river. On the east bank, an underpass would connect Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park with its Islands of Peace segment and also to Rice Creek Regional Trail (which connects to Rice Creek Chain -of -Lakes Park Reserve) and Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park. On the west bank, an underpass would provide access to the Shingle Creek Municipal Trail and the North Hennepin Regional Trail (which connects to several regional parks). , Robert Brown recently informed the study team that there will be some consideration for providing the pedestrian trail crossing on the north lanes (westbound) rather than the south lanes (eastbound). If this arrangement were to provide underpasses beneath the bridge, we would see this as a viable and workable trail access for North Mississippi Regional Park and the related trail connections. An Equai Ocoortunity Ernoloyer y Thank you for your input thus far into the North Mississippi planning process, and We Will look forward to Working With you and Bob as the plan and the 1694 project progresses. Should you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me (291 -6403) or Grant Scholen (291 - 6405). Sincerely, Robert E. Nethercut, Manager Parks and Natural Resources Div.' REM:db Enclosure cc: Mike Henry, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park: District Dave Torkildson, Anoka County Parks and Recreation i i ' • 57— APPENDIX D. LETTER TO PROPERTY OWNERS /RESIDENTS IN STUDY AREA Metropolitan Parks and Open S Commi lo1 30 0 Metro Square Building g Barbara A. Johnson, Chair Seventh and Robert Streets Citizen Advisory Group Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 North Mississippi Regional. Park Study 6121291 -6401 January 24, 1986 Dear Property Owner or Resident: As chair of the citizen advisory group designated to advise a regional park planning study team on a study for a new regional park, I would like to invite you to attend citizen advisory group meetings as they are held over the next few months. The planning study team is comprised of staff from the Metropolitan Council, the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and Anoka County. Under the provisions of Laws of Minnesota 1985 Special Session, Chap. 16, Seca 5 subd. 2(b), the Metropolitan Council, ...shall, unless not feasible, promptly designate the area on the east and west banks of the Mississippi river, consisting of the lands northward from the Camden area of the city of Minneapolis to the Interstate 694 corridor, as a regional park. The Hennepin County park reserve district and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board are the operating agencies, with cooperation from the affected units of government... The study team has identified a "study area" for the proposed park which is bound by Interstate 94, the Interstate 694 bridge, East River Road and the Camden Bridge. Tax records indicate that you either own property and /or reside in the study area as described. Please consider attending our citizen advisory group meetings. Members of the study team will be in attendance, and you will be able to learn more about the proposed park, related isues and the lannin process. Each citizen P 8 P advisory group meeting will include an open period for public comment, at which time it is our hope you will ask any questions and voice any concerns related to park planning proposals. The .next two citizen advisory group meetings will be held as follows: Wednesday, Jan. 29, 1986 Wednesday, Feb. 19 1986 3:30 — 5:30 p.m. 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. Webber Park Community Center Creekview Park Community Center 4400 Dupont Avenue North 5001 Irving Avenue North I look forward to meeting you. Sincerely, Barbara A. Johnson, Chair Citizen Advisory Group 59 Established by the Minnesota Legislature Ac an aoo..rt• ni ri,u �Tn�.•nnnl ;.• (`.....,.,;t r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN OF THE NORTH REGIONAL PARK STUDY /PLAN DATED JUNE 12, 1986 SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature mandated a review of the feasibility of the North Mississippi Regional Park; and WHEREAS, A Citizen's Committee examined the feasibility and has recommended a regional park be created; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has received from an Ad Hoc committee a favorable recommendation regarding the regional park concept; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the area within the proposed regional park as eventually being developed as public open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby approves the draft of the North Mississippi Regional Park study /plan dated June 12, 1986 on the condition that: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center will have the right to maintain its sanitary sewer lift station necessary appurtenances and water sewer utility easements within the designated park area. 2. The Suburban Hennepin Regional Park district will submit to the City of Brooklyn Center before the time of construction, the final development plans for the portion of the regional park within Brooklyn Center for review of compliance with the Master Plan as contained in the North Mississippi Regional Park Study /Plan dated June 12, 1986. 3. Any condemnation of property within the proposed Regional Park within Brooklyn Center will require prior approval by the Brooklyn Center City Council. 4. Sufficient funding is available for the purchase of Property from property owners who are currently interested in selling their property. RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN OF THE NORTH REGIONAL PARK STUDY /PLAN DATED JUNE 12, 1986 SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature mandated a review of the feasibility of the North Mississippi Regional Park; and WHEREAS, A Citizen's Committee examined the feasibility and has recommended a regional park be created; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has received from an Ad Hoc committee a favorable recommendation regarding the regional park concept; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the area within the proposed regional park as eventually being developed as public open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby approves the draft of the North Mississippi Regional Park study /plan dated June 12, 1986 on the condition that: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center will have the right to maintain its sanitary sewer lift station necessary appurtenances and water sewer utility easements within the designated park area. 2. The Suburban Hennepin County Park district will submit to the City of Brooklyn Center before the time of construction, the final development plans for the portion of the regional park within Brooklyn Center for review of compliance with the Master Plan as contained in the North Mississippi Regional Park Study /Plan dated June 12, 1986. 3. Any condemnation of property within the proposed Regional Park within Brooklyn Center will require prior approval by the Brooklyn Center City Council. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. p. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKNfAY OF :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER EMERGENCY- POLICE FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: March 19, 1987 RE: Recommendation to Adjust Public Utility Rates Attached hereto is a detailed study and report relating to the City's rate structure for providing a public water supply and for providing a public sanitary sewer service. This study has been prepared by the City Engineering Department in cooperation with the City Finance Department and in consultation with the City's Auditor. I believe that the report provides a clear and accurate view of the Public Utility funds financial performance and it is adequate to serve as a basis of the establishment of sanitary sewer and water rate schedules through the year 1989. The following " Executive Summary" is provided as an overview of this detailed study and report: SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Throughout the study and report we have assumed that the City will continue its past policy of maintaining a "single block rate ", both for water use rates and sanitary sewer use rates. This method charges the same rate (dollars per thousand gallons) for water usage and for sanitary usage, regardless of the actual amount used. Arguments can be made for either declining or increasing rates based on increased consumption. However, City staff agreed that the present "single block rate" has served the City well and should be continued. This section also includes detailed definitions of the financial terminology which is used throughout the report. In particular, it should be noted that the Public Utility fund has historically included a "depreciation expense" charge within the calculations for determining total operating expense. This "depreciation expense" provides funding for major repairs and /or replacement of depreciated elements of the utility systems. To date the Public Utility fund has accumulated a total reserve of $7.5 million. Of this amount, $4 million is invested in "restricted temporary investments" which are reserved for the future construction of major capital improvement projects such as a water treatment plant. The remaining $3.5 million of reserves are deposited in "unrestricted temporary "?Ae S°Mre now mmw " March 19, 1987 - Page 2 investments ". These investments are available to finance smaller capital improvement projects such as trunk watermains which are necessary in order to reinforce the water supply system or the installation of the SCADA system which will improve the reliability of service of the water supply system. This section also includes projections regarding population, connections, and pumpage. SECTION II. PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES This section forecasts that the increase in charges for sanitary sewer service from the MWCC (Metropolitan Waste Control Commission) will increase b an average �olf .3 � through the year 1990, and that the local costs f operating t e y systems wi 1 increase at t e rate of 5� p yeah`': SECTION III. ADEQUACY OF EXISTING UTILITY RATES In this section it is noted that in 1985 both the sanitary sewer, utility and the water utility experienced " operating losse when considering only operating income versus operating expense. However, because of the City's investment program for reserve funds, interest income has been able to cover not only operating losses but also to add "net income" to the reserve accounts. In addition to reviewing the basic user rates, this section also reviews in detail the system of charges for special services which are provided in conjunction with the operation of the utilities. Our study has indicated that most of these charges do not begin to cover the actual cost of providing the services. Accordingly, we are recommending that the charges be increased to levels which, in our opinion, do reflect the cost of providing those services. SECTION IV. RATE DETERMINATION METHODOLOGY Within this section, which is the essence of the study and report, we considered three alternative philosophies for rate establishment, i.e.: Option A assumes that the present rates will be maintained throughout the period of the study. Option B assumes that rates will be established so that operating revenues are equal to operating expenses minus 1/2 of the interest income. Under this approach half of the interest income is used to cover operating expenses while the other half of interest income is used to increase the reserves within the Public Utility fund. Option C assumes that rates will be established so that operating revenues cover all operating expenses. Under this option, all interest income is added to the reserves within the Public Utility fund. March 19, 1987 - Page 3 Appendices B, C, D and E provide detailed forecasts of the financial performance of the sanitary sewer utility through the year 1997, based on each of these three options. Graphs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 display those same projections in graphic format. Appendix F and Graphs 7 and 8 provide those same forecasts for the water utility. Following is a summary of our observations and comments regarding these three options: Option A Under this option the entire sewer utility reserve would be depleted by the year 1996, and the water utility reserve would be reduced to an unacceptable level ($3.4 million) by the year 1997. Option C Under this option sanitary sewer utility rates would increase approximately 98 per year for each of the next three years then level off to an average increase of approximately 3.58. Water utility rates would increase at an average of 258 per year for the next three years then increase at approximately 5% per year thereafter. The effect of this option on the reserves would be to increase the sewer utility reserve to $5.5 million in 1997 and to increase the water utility reserve to $9.7 million by 1997. It is the opinion of the City staff that these rate increases are not acceptable, and that it is unnecessary to accumulate reserve funds to these levels. Option B Under this option the sanitary sewer utility rates would be increased approximately 68 per year during each of the next three years followed by an approximate 3.58 per year thereafter. Water utility rates would increase an average of 12.5% per year during the first three years, then increase at approximately 58 per year thereafter. The effect of these rates on the reserves would be to increase the total reserve within the sewer utility from its 1985 level of $2.8 million to a 1997 level of $4.1 million. Under this option the reserve within the water utility fund would also increase from a 1985 level of $4.7 million to a 1997 level of $7.1 million. It is the opinion of City staff that these rate increases are reasonable and that this option provides an appropriate level of reserves. SECTION V. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis provided in Section 4, City staff recommends the adoption of Option B as a basis for the establishment of sanitary sewer rates and water use rates for the next three years. The present sanitary sewer base rate is $0.95 per 1,000 gallons of metered water. This rate has been in effect since 1982. It is recommended that this rate be increased to $1.01 in 1987, $1.07 in 1988 and to $1.13 dollars in 1989. March 19, 1987 - Page 4 The - present water.usage.base rate is $0.35.per;1,000 gallons of metered water This rat&I has been in effect at least since 1962. It is - -. recommended that this rate be increased to $0.40 in 1987, $0.45 in 1988 and $0.50 in 1989; In addition to the basic rate increase the study also recommends increases in charges for special services. In summary, the effects of these increases in the base rates upon the total rate structure for both utilities is shown on Pages 12, 13, 14 and 15 and on Graphs 4, 5, 6 and 7. Also included in the study are the following: Appendix G - This tabulation is a summary of total sanitary sewer and water use utility charges by 31 Minnesota cities. Examination of this tabulation shows that Brooklyn Center's present rate is the second lowest within the 31 cities In addition, this tabulation indicates that, even with the recommended rate increases, Brooklyn Center's total annual utility charges in 1989 would still be the 4th 'lowest of all of the cities, even if all other cities retained their 1 985 rates Appendix H - On this matrix we have shown the effects of the proposed rate increase on various categories of users It is my recommendation that this study and report be presented to the City Council as a discussion item at the March 23, 1987 City Council meeting. The City's Code of Ordinances provides that public utility rate increases may be adopted by resolution of the City Council, thereby not requiring that any public hearings be held prior to adoption of the new rates. However, we recommend that, following the initial discussion of the study and staff recommendations, the City Council provide direction as to the method by which this information should be made available to the public, and as to the policy which the City Council wishes to adopt regarding the solicitation of public input regarding the proposal It is recommended that consideration be given to adoption of the rate increase so as to be effective with all public utility charges billed on or after July 1, 1987. Upon receiving the review, comments and direction from the City Council,-we will prepare the required resolution for official consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp Director of Public Works i SK: jn TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Introduction 1 A. Scope of rate study 1 B. General assumptions and definitions of rate study 1 1. Assumptions 1 a. Single block water rate 1 b. Single block sanitary sewer rate 1 c. SAC water gallons 2 d. Interest rate on investments 2 2. Definitions 2 a. Operating expense 2 b. Operating revenue 2 c. Depreciation expense 2 d. Operating income 3 e. Net income 3 f. Interest revenue 3 g. Reserve 3 h. Restricted temporary investments 3 i. Unrestricted temporary investments 3 C. Population, connections and pumpage projections 4 1. Population 4 2. Connections 4 3. Pumpage 5 II. Projected operating expenses 5 A. Sanitary sewer operating expense 5 B. Water operating expense 5 III. Adequacy of existing utility rates, fees and charges 6 A. Adequacy of sanitary sewer rates, fees and charges 6 1. Rates 6 2. Fees 6 3. Charges 7 a. Delinquent account charge 7 b. Certification to taxes 7 c. Line cleaning charge 7 d. Sanitary sewer hookup charge 7 B. Adequacy of water rates, fees and charges 8 1. Rates 8 2. Fees 8 a. 5/8" x 3/4" water meter 8 b. 3/4" or larger water meter 8 c. Fire protection inspection 9 d. Private fire hydrant maintenance 9 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 3. Charges 9 a. Delinquent account charge 9 b. Certification to taxes 9 c. Restoration of service - Monday to Friday, 9 except holidays, between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. d. Restoration of service - anytime Saturday, 10 Sunday and holidays and between the hours Of 3:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. on Monday through Friday except holidays e. Delinquent meter reading 10 f. Water hookup charge 10 g. Hydrant meter charges 10 h. Curb stop /stand pipe repair 11 IV. Rate determination methodology 11 A. Sanitary sewer rate 11 B. Water rate 11 V. Recommendations 12 A. Sanitary sewer rate, fee and charge recommendation 12 1. Rates 13 2. Fees 13 3. Charges 13 B. Water rate, fee and charge recommendations 14 1. Rates 14 2. Fees 14 3. Charges 15 VI. Appendices A. Auditor's correspondence B. Sewer annual revenue requirement and base rate calculation C. Single family rates D. Senior citizen rates E. Apartment rates F. Water annual revenue requirement and rate calculation calculation G. Residential rate comparison H. Utility rate impact analysis VII. Graphs 1. Water and sewer pumpage 2. Sewer base rate 3. Sewer investments 4. Sewer single family rates 5. Sewer senior citizen rates 6. Sewer apartment rates 7. Water rates is 8. Water investments I. INTRODUCTION A. SCOPE OF RATE STUDY The staff of the City of Brooklyn Center has conducted a study to determine the adequacy of the present rate schedules for sanitary sewer and water service. We feel that the data reflected in this report reflects a clear and accurate view of the Public Utilities Fund's financial performance and that it is adequate to establish future sanitary sewer and water rate schedules through the year 1989. We have provided projections through the year 1997 for informational purposes to support our findings. The data analyzed in this report includes the financial information and other sanitary sewer and water statistical information from the period 1976 through 1985. The historical financial information presented in this report includes only the period of 1981 through 1985 due to space restraints in the supporting spreadsheets. The historical information was reviewed by Seifert, Betts & Co., Ltd. and found to be accurate as stated in appendix A. Information included in this report for the years 1986 through 1997 are projections from the historical information. B. GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS OF RATE STUDY 1. ASSUMPTIONS In completing this study, certain assumptions and general philosophies were agreed upon. The following is a brief discussion of the most significant assumptions: a. SINGLE BLOCK WATER RATE The single block water rate is the present method of charging for water service. This method charges the same unit amount for water usage regardless of the actual amount used. While arguments can be made for either declining or increasing block rate methods of charging for water usage, it was agreed by the City Staff that the present single block has served the city well in providing low cost water rates and is the method proposed by this rate study. b. SINGLE BLOCK SANITARY SEWER RATE Sanitary Sewer is charged under a modified single block. The sanitary sewer base rate is single block in that it uses the same unit rate in calculating the various rates. The single block rate is modified in that a quarterly rate is calculated from the base rate for single family, apartment and senior citizen sanitary sewer service customers. 1 C. SAC WATER GALLONS SAC .(Service Availability Charge) water use guidelines were used in calculating single family, apartment and senior citizen water use for use in calculating sanitary sewer rates. The SAC guideline for residential water usage was developed by the MWCC (Metropolitan Waste Control Commission) and is an average water usage calculation for single family residential users (i.e. 274 gallons per single family residence per day). d. INTEREST RATE ON INVESTMENTS In order to project interest revenue on investments future interest rates were projected. We recognize that interest rates are declining and we estimated interest at 10 percent in 1987 declining by 1 percent per year to 6 percent in 1991. 2. DEFINITIONS a. OPERATING EXPENSE Operating expense is the cost of providing service and includes personal service (labor and benefits), contractual service (administration, customer accounting and contracted repairs), MWCC charges (sanitary sewer flows), supplies and materials (repair and maintenance parts) heat, light and power (utilities) interest on debt (interest paid on bonds) depreciation expense (defined below) and other expenses. b. OPERATING REVENUE Operating revenue is money collected in providing service to customers. In this report we are concerned with revenue from utility rate charges and do not include other sources of revenue included as operating revenue in year end financial statements such as hook -up charges, sale of water meters, and penalties. The later sources of revenue are not due to providing utility service. c. DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Depreciation expense is a method of financing fixed assets over the anticipated life of the asset. The City uses a straight- line method of depreciation which means that the total cost of the fixed asset is depreciated in equal parts for it's entire anticipated life. Any new fixed asset (i.e. Brookdale 16" Water Main) is added to the total for the fixed asset category (mains and lines, structures, equipment, land and construction in progress) as well as any addition or repair to an existing fixed asset that adds to the life of an asset (i.e. Water Tower No. 3 Reconditioning). 2 d. OPERATING INCOME Operating income is income gained from regular utility operations and is simply operating revenue minus operating expense. No other revenue (i.e. interest revenue) is included. e. NET INCOME Net income is total revenues minus total expenses and includes operating revenue and operating expenses as well as non - operating revenue and non - operating expense. The most significant factor in net income is the addition of interest revenue. f. INTEREST REVENUE Interest revenue is interest gains on the Public Utility temporary investments. The temporary investments are invested in the City's investment portfolio of which the Public Utility share is $7.5 million in 1985. In 1985 a total of $756,148 of interest revenue was earned on Public Utility temporary investments. g. RESERVE Reserve is the total of current temporary investments and restricted temporary investments. Net income is added to the reserve accounts each year and the reserve is used to finance capital improvements and as a guard against a catastrophic occurrence (i.e. water source pollution). The Public Utility Fund's total reserve in 1985 was $7.5 million in 1985. h. RESTRICTED TEMPORARY INVESTMENTS Restricted temporary investments are reserves that are bound to a future capital improvement. An example is that $3.7 million has been restricted to the construction of a water treatment plant in the water. An additional $300,000 is restricted for sewer accounts making the total restricted temporary investment reserve $4 million. i. UNRESTRICTED TEMPORARY INVESTMENTS Unrestricted temporary investments are reserves that are no bound to a future capital improvement. These investments are available to finance other capital improvements and amount to $3.5 million. 3 C. POPULATION, CONNECTIONS AND PUMPAGE PROJECTIONS 1. POPULATION The population trend for the City of Brooklyn Center is that the population is slowly declining and is projected to be steady from 1990 to 2000. The table on the next page shows the population from 1920 through 2000. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POPULATION (1920 TO 2000) Year Population 1920 788 1930 1,344 1940 1,870 1950 4,284 1960 24,356 1970 35,173 1980 31,230 1990 30,000* 2000 30,000* * Projected by the Metropolitan Council 2. CONNECTIONS The City of Brooklyn Center is virtually fully developed and approximately 98 percent of the present population base o'f potential sanitary sewer and water customers are connected to the systems. The number of connections for all customers has increased by an average of about 1 percent per year over the last ten years and it is projected that the rate of increased connections will be less than l percent through 1990. The number of single family connections has increased by 67 connections over the past ten years and has actually declined by 15 connections over the past 3 years. Most of the growth in utility connections is attributed to increase in townhouse construction which has tripled the number of townhouses from 246 in 1976 to 966 in 1985. The townhouse construction trend has also leveled in the past 3 years and the average increase over the past three years is 55 units per year. Connection growth for industrial /commercial customers has increased by more than 2 percent per year. The number of industrial/ commercial connections is much less than the number of residential connections, approximately 4 percent of the total connections, and does little to influence total connection numbers. 4 3. PUMPAGE Water and sanitary sewer pumpage for the period of this study is projected to increase at approximately the same rate as the past ten years. In the case of water pumpage, the average annual increase has been less than 1 percent over the past nine years (1977 was a high peak year and was not included in the projection calculations). While water pumpage experiences high peaks and valleys largely due to summer weather, the trend will be approximately one percent per year increase through the year 1997. Sanitary sewer pumpage metered by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has increased at an annual average of just over 1 percent. It is projected that sanitary sewer pumpage will increase by approximately 1 percent per year through the year 1997. Graph 1 shows sanitary sewer and water pumpage from 1977 through 1997. II. PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES The Public Utility Fund operating expenses have been analyzed for the period 1976 through 1985 and projections made from 1986 through 1997. The financial status of 1986 has not been audited at the time of this report and all financial information for 1986 is projected. A. SANITARY SEWER OPERATING EXPENSE According to the MWCC (Metropolitan Waste Control Commission) fee estimates through the year 1990, it is anticipated that MWCC charges will exceed $1 million in 1987. MWCC accounts fora approximately 70 PP y percent of the total cost of providing sanitary sewer service in the City of Brooklyn Center. It is projected that MWCC charges will increase by an average of 2.3 percent each year through 1990 due primarily to increased disposal costs and to a lesser degree to increased flows. In obtaining projections for all other operating costs the years 1976 through 1985 where analyzed to determine a factor to use to project future costs. The analysis of past operating costs indicated that a five percent annual factor best approximated the actual increases experienced in past years. It was decided to use the 5 percent factor in projecting future years operating expense. The sanitary sewer operating expense history (1981 to 1985) and operating expense projections (1986 to 1997) are detailed on the sewer utility's annual revenue requirements spreadsheet appendix B. B. WATER OPERATING EXPENSE As in the case of sanitary sewer, water operating expense history was analyzed (1976 to 1985) to project future operating costs. Again it was decided to use a five percent factor to project future operating expense. Plant and equipment depreciation is the largest expense for water service amounting to 34 percent of the total operating expense. The next largest expense is personnel service contributing over 23 percent to total operating expense. Water operating expense history (1981 to 1985) and operating expense projections (1986 to 1997) are 5 detailed in the water utility's annual revenue requirements spreadsheet appendix F. III. ADEQUACY OF EXISTING UTILITY RATES The adequacy of existing sanitary sewer and water rates was analyzed by comparing projected operating expense with projected revenues using the present utility rate structures. The present rate structures were applied to projected flows,;pumpage and connections to determine the annual revenue from service to customers. We also considered interest income gained from temporary investments for sanitary sewer and water service. Over the years substantial reserves have accumulated amounting in 1985 to $4.7 million for water and $2.8 million for sanitary sewer. In 1985 both sanitary sewer and water experienced operating losses. These losses where overshadowed by the interest income on temporary investments and each experienced net income for 1985. A survey of utility rates performed by the City of Roseville in 1985 indicates that the present utility rates by the City of Brooklyn Center are the second lowest of the cities responding. The survey also indicates that the new rates recommended below for the years 1987 through 1989 still rank below the average of the 1985 rates. Refer to appendix G for rate survey comparison. A. ADEQUACY OF SANITARY SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES 1. RATES The present sanitary sewer rate schedule in not adequate to recover all operating expenses. Operating expense has exceeded operating revenue resulting in an operating loss from 1982 through 1985. A net income was experienced by the sanitary sewer utility in each of those years due to the addition of interest on investments. Each year as the operating loss increases, more of the interest revenue is required to offset the operating loss and a net loss is projected to occur in 1988. At the present sanitary sewer rate, net losses would continue to occur each year, exhausting sanitary sewer temporary investments.by the year 1996. This trend is displayed by the Option A line in graph 3. 2. FEES The only fee for sanitary sewer service is the SAC (Service Availability Charge) unit charge which is established by MWCC. This fee goes directly to MWCC. 6 3. CHARGES a. DELINQUENT ACCOUNT CHARGE The present delinquent account charge of $1.00 is not a sufficient incentive to pay utility bills by established deadlines. It is felt that any flat charge approach to delinquent accounts either does not motivate or is unreasonably harsh depending on the specific population of public utility customer. In light of this it is proposed that the city adopt a flat charge or a percentage of the total bill charge to delinquent accounts. The recommended $5.00 flat fee is designed to motivate the small user into paying in a timely manner because a percentage approach may not motivate a customer with a small bill. The percentage of total bill approach is designed to motivate a large industrial customer who may have a substantial bill and potentially a substantial late charge if the payment is not made by the deadline. The percent of total bill is recommended to be 10 percent. It is recommended that either the flat charge or the percentage of total bill (whichever is greater) be charged to delinquent accounts. The delinquent account charge is applied to the total utility bill. b. CERTIFICATION TO TAXES • The special assessment service charge for delinquent accounts is designed to recover the cost of certification of the delinquent amounts to taxes with the Hennepin County Treasurer. It is recommended that the special assessment service charge for delinquent accounts be increased from $10.00 to $25.00 per account. c. LINE CLEANING CHARGE The line cleaning charge is new to public utility rates and is intended to recover the cost cleaning city sanitary sewer lines do to misuse by the property owner. The most common infraction is grease build -up due to improper sewering of restaurant greases. Since the cost of cleaning the sewer system varies greatly, it is recommended that the property owner be billed for the actual cost of labor, materials, equipment and overhead. d. SANITARY SEWER HOOKUP CHARGE Properties that have never been assessed, or not fully assessed, for sanitary sewer are charged a hookup charge when sanitary sewer hookup is requested. The sanitary sewer hookup charge is intended to cover the cost of the lateral sanitary sewer main and is calculated on a linear foot basis. The sanitary sewer and water hookup rates established annually by resolution. 7 B. ADEQUACY OF WATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES • 1. RATES The present water rate schedule does not fully recover operating expense and an operating loss has occurred each year since 1982. While an operating loss occurred each year since 1982, a net income was experienced due to the addition of interest on water temporary investments. The amount of the operating loss is projected to increase in future years and, at the present water rate, would exceed the temporary investment interest revenue in the year 1990 accounting for a net loss. As the Option A line in graph 8 indicates, the temporary investment balance would continue to decline through 1997. Water rates have been subject to a quarterly minimum charge for water service to make certain that all customers share in the cost of administration and billing of water accounts. The minimum rate is based on water meter size and is ,charged to each active customer even though their water usage may not support the charge. In calculating the minimum rate, the cost of administration and customer accounting was totaled, the number of accounts by water meter size were determined and a minimum rate for each meter size calculated. The new minimum rate was increased in three steps through 1989 increasing the minimum rate for single family residents (5/8" X 3/4" meters) from $4.00 per quarter in 1986 to • $7.00 per quarter in 1989. 2. FEES a. 5/8" X 3/4" WATER METER Property owners are charged $40.00 for a water meter when a water account is opened with the City. The City then buys the water meter from the property owner when the water account is closed and the new owner is then charged for the water meter when a new account is opened. Since most of the water meters in the City are of this size it is administratively convenient to charge the same fee to all accounts. At the present time $40.00 covers the cost of the meter and administration and is adequate for the term of this rate study. b. 3/4" OR LARGER WATER METER Property owners requiring water meters larger than the standard residential water meter, are charged the cost of the meter plus a $2.00 administrative fee. Since there are much fewer of the larger meters it is not as difficult to administer the buy -back of the water meters and the cost can fluctuate with the cost of the water meters. 8 c. FIRE PROTECTION INSPECTION • Property owners with fire sprinkler systems are charged an annual fire inspection fee of $50.00 to test the fire sprinkler system. This fee is adequate for the term of this rate study. d. PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT MAINTENANCE Property owners who have privately owned fire hydrants located on their property are billed the cost of labor, materials, equipment and overhead whenever the City performs maintenance of their fire hydrants. 3. CHARGES a. DELINQUENT ACCOUNT CHARGE The delinquent charge applies to the utility bill as a whole and is covered above in the sanitary sewer charges section. b. CERTIFICATION TO TAXES Delinquent utility bills are certified to taxes as a whole. The certification to taxes charge is covered above in the sanitary sewer charges section. • c. RESTORATION OF SERVICE - MONDAY TO FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 7:30 A.M. TO 3:00 P.M. The present restoration of service during working hours fee of $10.00 does not cover the cost of sending a Public Utility Department employee out to a residence to restore water service. In the past this fee was charged only to customers who had their water service turned off because of non - payment of utility bills. Water services are also turned off and restored by order of the customer especially when the customer is leaving on vacation for an extended time during the winter and wants the water service turned off and water meter removed to prevent water line freezing. In the future the water restoration should be charged for all instances where a customer's water has been turned -off and it is requested that the service be restored. The new restoration of service charge during working hours is recommended to be $25.00 and includes the cost of one hour labor, labor additive and vehicle rental. 9 d. RESTORATION OF SERVICE - ANYTIME SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND . HOLIDAYS AND BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 3:00 P.M. AND 7:30 P.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY EXCEPT HOLIDAYS The present restoration of service during the hours described - above is $10.00 and is no adequate to recover the cost of restoring water service because City crews receive overtime pay during those times. If a Public Utilities employee is called- back to work a minimum of a two hour call -back is required, overtime pay. Restoration of service is much more expensive and a $75.00 restoration of service charge is recommended during these hours. e. DELINQUENT METER READING The delinquent meter reading charge is designed to motivate water customers into reading their own meter and forwarding the meter reading card to the city for billing. The present charge of $0.50 is neither a strong motivator nor does it cover the cost of calculating an estimated billing required to produce a water bill for the quarter that the meter reading is delinquent. A new delinquent meter reading of $1.00 per account will cover the cost of estimating water usage and provide more motivation to send in the meter reading card within the allotted time. f. WATER HOOKUP CHARGE Properties that have never been assessed, or not fully assessed, for water are charged a hookup charge when water hookup is requested. The water hookup charge is intended to cover the cost of the lateral water main, supply and trunk capital investment in the water system. It is calculated on a per lot basis for single family residential and on a linear foot plus square foot basis for all other properties. The sanitary sewer and water hookup rates established annually by resolution. g. HYDRANT METER CHARGES The hydrant meter charges pertain to meters that attach to fire hydrants that are used as a temporary water connection usually for construction projects. The City has two sizes of hydrant meters, 5/8" X 3/4" and 2 1/2 ". The charges for the 5/8" X 3/4" hydrant include $100.00 deposit, $1.00 per day rental, $20.00 minimum charge and the cost of water used at the prevailing water rate. The charges for the 2 1/2" hydrant meter include $600.00 deposit, $6.00 per day rental, $30.00 minimum charge and the cost of water used at the prevailing water rate. 10 h. CURB STOP /STAND PIPE REPAIR City crews are called on to repair curb stops and /or stand pipes for private properties due to damage or settling. In cases where the curb stop and /or stand pipe is bent or otherwise damaged a substantial amount of time can be involved in repair which at the present time is not collected through any charge. It is recommended that a standard charge of $40.00 be charged for curb stop /stand pipe repair. IV. RATE DETERMINATION METHODOIOCY In reviewing the rate structures, we considered three alternative approaches i.e.: "Option A" - maintain the present rates throughout the period of the study. "Option B" - establish rates so that operating revenues are equal to operating expenses minus one -half of interest income. Under this approach half of the interest income is used to cover operating expenses while the other half of interest income is used to increase the reserves within the Public Utility Fund "Option C" - establish rates so that operating revenues cover all operating expenses. Under this alternative, all interest income is added to the reserves within the Public Utility Fund. A. SANITARY SEWER RATE In determining the sanitary sewer rate a base rate was calculated as a per 1,000 gallons of water usage rate. The base rate is used to calculate the flat quarterly residential rates. The residential rate is determined by taking the total annual water use for each residential category, applying the base rate and dividing by the number of billing units in each category. The single family rate was used in calculating the fixture unit rate by dividing the single family rate by the average number of fixture units in a single family home. The fixture unit rate is the rate used to charge non- residential customers who are not connected to city water. Sewer rate calculations are displayed in appendices B, C, D, and E. 2. WATER RATE The water rate was calculated on a per 1,000 gallons of water used • for all categories of customers. The formula in determining the rate was operating expense (minus 1/2 interest in the 1/2 interest calculations are displayed in appendix F. 11 V. RECOMMENDATIONS This study considered three options in calculating future sanitary sewer and water utility rates. The options included: Option A - leave rates unchanged; Option B - change rates so operating revenue equals operating expense minus one -half interest revenue Option C change rates so operating revenue equals operating expense. These three options are displayed and discussed throughout this study and in the spreadsheets and graphs presented. We selected Option B because we feel that the rates proposed under this approach provide the City's utility customers with a reasonable charge for sanitary sewer and water service. It also provides operating and interest revenue necessary to recover operating expense and maintain a financially strong Public Utility Fund. The Option B approach also provides reserves adequate to fund capital improvements and provide a contingency in case of a catastrophic incident. The proposed rates below reflect the Option B approach. We did not select the Option A approach because it would eat away at financial reserves and we feel in the long run would directly cause higher utility rates due to loss of the ability to fund capital improvement. Option A would lead to a net loss (including interest revenue) in 1989. We also did not select Option C because it would raise rates much higher than the Option B approach and would build reserves greater than our • anticipated need. It is felt that Option C might be the preferred approach if we had plans for major capital improvement (i.e. water treatment plant) within the term of this study. Since we have no such plans at this time, we recommend Option B. A. SANITARY SEWER RATE, FEE AND CHARGE RECOMMENDATIONS The sanitary sewer utility has three methods of billing services. First, the non - residential customer is billed in the same manner as water service in that the sanitary sewer billing relates to the amount of water metered. The present sanitary sewer base rate is $0.95 per 1,000 gallons of metered water. The recommended increase in the non- residential sanitary sewer rate is displayed in the Option B line of graph 2 and calculated in exhibit B. Second, the residential customers are billed on a flat quarterly basis. The quarterly fee is calculated using SAC water gallons per single family home multiplied by the base rate of per 1,000 gallons of water divided by the number accounts. Senior citizen and apartment rates are calculated from the single family rate as 55 and 70 percent of the single family rate respectively. The recommended increase in single family, senior citizen and apartment sanitary sewer rates are displayed in the Option B lines of graphs 4, 5 and 6 respectfully. Rate calculations are included in exhibits C, D and E respectfully. 12 The third method of billing is the fixture rate. The fixture rate is • used to bill non - residential accounts that are not connected to the . water system and have no way of metering water usage. In this case number of water fixtures are counted and multiplied by the fixture unit charge. The fixture unit charge relates to the single family rate and is approximately 1 /16th of that rate. The fixture rate is calculated along with the single family residential rate in exhibit C. 1. RATES QUARTERLY RESIDENTIAL RATES SINGLE SENIOR YEAR FAMI LY APARTMENT CITIZEN Present $21.25 $14.90 $10.50 1987 Proposed $23.59 $16.53 $12.18 1988 Proposed- $25.92 $18.16 $13.86 1989 Proposed $28.25 $19.78 $15.54 NON- RESIDENTIAL RATES PER 1,000 FIXTURE YEAR GALLONS UNITS Present $0.95 $1.30 • 1987 Proposed $1.01 $1.45 1988 Proposed $1.07 $1.60 1989 Proposed $1.13 $1.75 FEE /CHARGE PRESENT FEE CHARGE PROPOSED FEE /CHARGE 2. FEES s SAC Charge Set by MWCC Set by MWCC 3. CHARGES Delinquent Account Quarterly $1.00 $5.00 or 10% Certification to Taxes Per Account $10.00 $25.00 Line Cleaning Charge Labor, Materials Labor, Materials Equipment and Equipment and Overhead Overhead Sanitary Sewer Hookup Established Established Annually by Annually by • Resolution Resolution 13 B. WATER RATE, FEE AND CHARGE RECOMMENDATIONS • Water service is billed by one method, per 1,000 gallons, for all customers. The rate is calculated by dividing total operating expense by number of billable gallons of water. 1. RATES BASE RATE AMOUNT PER YEAR 1.000 GALLONS Present $0.35 1987 Proposed $0.40 1988 Proposed $0.45 1989 Proposed $0.50 QUARTERLY MINIMUM RATE PRESENT 1987 1988 1989 METER SIZE MINIMUM PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 5/8" X 3/4" $4 $5 $6 $7 3/4" $6 $8 $9 $11 1 $8 $10 $12 $14 1 1/2" $10 $13 $15 $18 2" $20 $25 $30 $35 3" $40 $50 $60 $70 4" $68 $85 $102 $119 6" $156 $195 $234 $273 8" $294 $368 $441 $515 10" $392 $+490 $588 $686 FEE /CHARGE PRESENT FEE /CHARGE PROPOSED FEE /CHARGE 2. FEES Water Meters 5/8" x 3/4 $40.00 $40.00 3/4" or Larger Cost Plus $2.00 Cost Plus $2.00 Fire Protection Inspection $50.00 $50.00 Private Fire Hydrant Maintenance Labor, Materials Labor, Materials Equipment and Equipment and Overhead Overhead • 14 FEE /CHARGE PRESENT FEE /CHARGE PROPOSED FEE /CHARGE . 3. CHARGES Delinquent Account Quarterly $1.00 $5.00 or 10% (Whichever is Greater) Certification to Taxes Per Account $10.00 $25.00 Restoration of Service Monday thru Friday, except Holidays, between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. $10.00 $25.00 Restoration of Service Anytime Saturday, Sunday and Holidays and between the hours of 3:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. on Monday Through Friday $10.00 $75.00 Delinquent Meter Reading Per Account $0.50 $1.00 Curb Stop /Stand Pipe Repair No Charge $40.00 Hydrant Meters 5/8" x 3/4" Deposit $50.00 $100.00 Daily Rental $0.50 $1.00 Minimum Rental $15.00 $20.00 2 1/2" Deposit $300.00 $600.00 Daily Rental $3.00 $6.00 Minimum Rental $15.00 $30.00 15 S EIFE R T, B & CO., LTD. CERTI PUBLIC ACCOU c° February 18, 1987 Mr. Paul Holmlund, Finance Director City of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Holmlund: As you requested, we compared the amounts used in the water and sewer report prepared by the Brooklyn Center Engineering Department to amounts reported in audited City of Brooklyn Center reports for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. We found amounts used for those years to be accurate. Respectfully submitted, SEIFERT, BETTS & CO., LTD. IAMES W. SEIFERT. CPA GEORGE D. BETTS. CPA KENNETH P. JAEB, CPA LARRY S. JACOBSON. CPA LARRY S. DOPPLER. CPA JANE L. HOYUM. CPA CINDY K. HAYES. CPA DOUGLAS F. BERGSTROM. CPA 612/546-3306 APPENDIX A 7035 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 -1777 SEWER UTILITY'S ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT PERSONAL SERVICE $60,186 $104,848 $116,424 $78,063 $86,587 $90,916 $95,462 $100,235 $105,247 $110,509 $116,035 $121,837 $127,928 $134,325 $141,041 $148,093 $155,498 CONTRACTUAL SERVICE $165,590 $96,001 $113,335 $136,256 $154,876 $150,222 $157,733 $165,620 $173,901 $182,596 $191,726 $201,312 $211,378 $221,947 $233,044 $244;696 $256,931 MWCC CHARGES $637,256 $690,722 $811,271 $845,466 $806,390 $964,155 $1,052,414 $1,070,101 $1,092,769 $1,123,284 $1,179,448 $1,238,420 $1,300,341 $1,365,358 $1,433,626 $1,505,308 $1,580,573 SUPPLIES 5 MATERIALS $7,066 $11,069 $12,478 $15,294 $7,349 $11,184 $11,743 $12,330 $12,947 $13,594 $14,274 $14,987 $15,737 $16,524 $17,350 $18,217 $19,128 HEAT, LIGHT 5 POWER $10,393 $12,859 $14,940 $15,366 $15,485 $16,259 $17,072 $17,926 $18,822 $19,763 $20,751 $21,789 $22,878 $24,022 $25,223 $26,485 $27,809 INTEREST ON DEBT $0 $71,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $71,438 $77,445 $90,110 $105,846 $106,196 $111,506 $117,081 $122,935 $129,082 $135,536 $142,313 $149,428 $156,900 $164,745 $172,982 $181,631 $190,713 OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ` $0 $0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,929 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124;430 $2,230,651 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- --- -- ------ ------ ---- -- ---- -- - --------- ---- -- ------------------------------------------------- BILLABLE WATER (SAC CALCULATION) 1,180,081 1,170,006 1,177,106 1,216,700 1,224,990 1,240,687 1,251,851 1,266,277 1,281,476 1,297,502 1,314,411 1,332,265 1,351,128 1,371,072 1,392,173 1,414 1,438,175 OPTION A: PRESENT RATE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 OPERATING REVENUE $1,117,670 $1,014,255 $1,035,537 $1,087,278 $1,078,708 $1,178,652 $1,189,259 $1,202,963 ' $1,217,402 $1,232,627 $1,248,690 $1,265,651 $1,283,572 $1,302,519 $1,322,564 $1,343;786 $1,366,267 REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,929 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,1244430 $2,230,651 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) $165,741 ($50,401) ($123,021) ($109,013) ($98,175) ($165,590) ($262,247) ($286,184) ($315,365) ($352,656) ($415,856) ($482,122) ($551,591) ($624,402) ($700,702) ($780,644) ($864,385) ------------------------------- INTEREST REVENUE $117,211 $233,013 $219,507 $260,008 $280,724 $282,328 $294,002 $267,460 $236,244 $201,175 $163,347 $148,196 $128,161 $102,755 $71,456 ' $33,701 ($11,115) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------°°------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $1,743,920 $1,943,024 $2,046,441 $2,274,580 $2,523,282 $2,640,020 $2,671,775 $2,653,050 $2,573,929 $2,422,448 $2,169,939 $1,836,013 $1,412,583 $890,937 $261,691 ($485,252)($1,360,752) RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 ------------------------------ TOTAL INVESTMENTS $2,043,920 $2,243,024 $2,346,441 $2,574,580 $2,823,282 $2,940,020 $2,971,775 $2,953,050 $2,873,929 $2,722,448 $2,469,939 $2,136,013 $1,712,583$1,190,937 $561,691 ($185,252)($1,060,752) ------------------------------------------------------- ---- ----- -- ---- ------- ----- -- ------ ----- ---- --- --- ---- ------- ------------------------------- OPTION B: (OPERATING REVENUE + 1/2 OF INTEREST INCOME - OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.01 $1.07 $1.13 $1.13 $1.19 $1.23 $1.28 $1.33 $1.37 $1.42 $1.47 OPERATING REVENUE $1,117,670 $1,014,255 $1,035,537 $1,087,278 $1,078,708 $1,178,652 $1,226,814 $1,316,928 $1,409,623 $1,466,177 $1,564,825 $1,645,061 $1,729,368 $1,817,952 $1,911,029 $2,008,825 $2,111,579 * 1/2 OF INTEREST REVENUE $147,001 $135,420 $124,318 $112,627 $99,722 $102,713 $105,795 $108,968 $112,237 $115,605 $119,073 REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,929 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124,430 $2,230,651 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) $165,741 ($50,401) ($123,021) ($109,013) ($98,175) ($165,590) ($77,691) ($36,800) $1,174 ($6,479) $0 ($O) $0 ($0) $0 ($0) ($0) ----------------------------- ** INTEREST REVENUE $117,211 $233,013 $219,507 $260,008 $280,724 $282,328 $147,001 $135,420 $108,778 $112,627 $99,722 $102,713 $105,795 $108,968 $112,237 $115,605 $119,073 ----------=--------------------- UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $1,743,920 $1,943,024 $2,046,441 $2,274,580 $2,523,282 $2,640,020 $2,709,330 $2,807,951 $2,917,903 $3,024,051 $3,123,773 $3,226,486 $3,332,280 $3,441,249 $3,553,486 $3,669,091 $3,788,163 RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL INVESTMENTS $2,043,920 $2,243,024 $2,346,441 $2,574,580 $2,823,282 $2,940,020 $3,009,330 $3,107,951 $3,217,903 $3,324,051 $3,423,773 $3,526,486 $3,632,280$3,741,249 $3,853,486 $3,969,091 $4,088,163 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OPTION C: (OPERATING REVENUE - OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.04 $1.13 $1.22 $1.22 $1.27 $1.31 $1.36 $1.41 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 • OPERATING REVENUE $1,117,670 $1,014,255 $1,035,537 $1,087,278 $1,078,708 $1,178,652 $1,245,592 $1,373,910 $1,505,734 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124,430 $2,230,651 REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,929 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124,430 $2,230,651 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) $165,741 ($50,401) ($123,021) ($109,013) ($98,175) ($165,590) ($205,914) ($115,237) ($27,033) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 INTEREST REVENUE $117,211 $233,013 $219,507 $260,008 $280,724 $282,328 $294,002 $272,530 $254,832 $238,924 $219,127 $232,275 $246,212 $260,984 $276,643 $293,242 $310,836 UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $1,743,920 $1,943,024 $2,046,441 $2,274,580 $2,523,282 $2,640,020 $2,728,108 $2,885,401 $3,113,200 $3,352,124 $3,571,251 $3,803,526 $4,049,738 $4,310,722 $4,587,366 $4,880,607 $5,191,444 RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 TOTAL INVESTMENTS $2,043,920 $2,243,024 $2,346,441 $2,574,580 $2,823,282 $2,940,020 $3,028,108 $3,185,401 $3,413,200 $3,652,124 $3,871,251 $4,103,526 $4,349,738 $4,610,722 $4,887,366 $5,180,607 $5,491,444 * REFLECTS 1/2 OF EARNED INTEREST TO BE USED IN THE RATE CALCULATION AFTER 1986 ** REFLECTS 1/2 OF EARNED INTEREST NOT USED IN RATE CALCULATION AFTER 1986 APPENDIX B SINGLE FAMILY RATES SEWER UTILITY'S ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT PERSONAL SERVICE $60,105 $104,848 $116,424 $78,063 $86,587 $90,916 $95,462 $100,335 $105,247 $110,509 $116,035 $121,837 $127,928 $134,325 $141,041 $148,093 $155,498 CONTRACTUAL SERVICE $165,590 $96,001 $113,335 $136,256 $154,876 $150,222 $157,733 $165,620 $173,901 $182,596 $191,726 $201,312 $211,378 $221,947 $233,044 $244,696 $256,931 MWCC CHARGES $637,256 $690,722 $811,271 $845,466 $806,390 $964,155 $1,052,414 $1,070,101 $1,092,769 $1,123,284 $1,179,448 $1,238,420 $1,300,341 $1,365,358 $1,433,626 $1,505,308 $1,580,573 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS $7,066 $11,069 $12,478 $15,294 $7,349 $11,184 $11,743 $12,330 $12,947 $13,594 $14,274 $14,987 $15,737 $16,524 $17,350 $18,217 $19,128 HEAT, LIGHT 5 POWER $10,393 $12,859 $14,940 $15,366 $15,485 $16,259 $17,072 $17,926 $18,822 $19,763 $20,751 $21,789 $22,878 $24,022 $25,223 $26,485 $27,809 INTEREST ON DEBT 0 $ $71,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $O $0 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $71,438 $77,445 $90,110 $105,846 $106,196 $111,506 $117,081 $122,935 $129,082 $135,536 $142,313 $149,428 $156,900 $164,745 $172,982 $181,631 $190,713 OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ------------------------------- TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,848 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124,430 $2,230,651 ------------------------------- TOTAL BILLABLE WATER 1,123,535 1,111,095 1,115,060 1,151,409 1,155,573 1,171,050 1,175,449 1,186,023 1,197,178 1,208,955 1,221,401 1,234,567 1,248,507 1,263,279 1,278,947 1,295,579 1,313,249 SINGLE FAMILY BILLABLE WATER 711,400 711,246 717,181 721,072 717,772 725,379 721,581 723,613 725,860 728,345 731,091 734,125 737,476 741,175 745,255 749,753 754,710 NUMBER OF REISDENTIAL CONNECTIONS 8,141 8,183 8,299 8,397 8,439 8,519 8,604 8,694 8,790 8,893 9,001 9,117 9,240 9,371 9,510 9,659 9,818 NUMBER OF SENIOR CONNECTIONS 1,028 1,071 1,128 1,187 1,262 1,266 1,389 1,459 1,533 1,610 1,691 1,776 1,866 1,960 2,058 2,162 2,271 OPTION A: PRESENT RATE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 • SINGLE FAMILY ACCOUNTS 7,113 7,112 7,171 7,210 7,177 7,253 7,215 7,235 7,258 7,283 7,310 7,341 7,374 7,411 7,452 7,497 7,546 WATER USE 711,400 711,246 717,181 721,072 717,772 725,379 721,581 723,613 725,860 728,345 731,091 734,125 737,476 741,175 745,255 749,753 754,710 QUARTERLY RATE $20.00 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 FIXTURE UNIT RATE $1.25 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 REVENUE $569,063 $604,498 $609,543 $612,850 $610,045 $616,511 $613,283 $615,010 $616,920 $619,031 $621,365 $623,944 $626,792 $629,935 $633,403 $637,226 $641,439 OPTION B: (OPERATING REVENUE + 1/2 OF INTEREST INCOME - OPERATING EXPENSE) RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.01 $1.07 $1.13 $1.13 $1.19 $1.23 $1.28 $1.33 $1.37 $1.42 $1.47 SINGLE FAMILY ACCOUNTS 7,113 7,112 7,171 7,210 7,177 7,253 7,215 7,235 7,258 7,283 7,310 7,341 7,374 7,411 7,452 7,497 7,546 WATER USE 711,400 711,246 717,181 721,072 717,772 725,379 721,581 723,613 725,860 728,345 731,091 734,125 737,476 741,175 745,255 749,753 754,710 QUARTERLY RATE $20.00 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $23.59 $25.92 $28.25 $28.25 $29.75 $30.75 $32.00 $33.25 $34.25 $35.50 $36.75 FIXTURE UNIT RATE $1.25 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.50 $1.60 $1.75 $1.75 $1.86 $1.92 $2.00 $2.08 $2.14 $2.22 $2.30 ------ -- --- --- ------ -- --- --- --- - REVENUE $569,063 $604,498 $609,543 $612,850 $610,045 $616,511 $647,049 $716,450 $786,360 $823,030 $869,998 $902,974 $943,969 $985,762 $1,020,999 $1,064,649 $1,109,423 OPTION C: (OPERATING REVENUE - OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.04 $1.13 $1.22 $1.22 $1.27 $1.31 $1.36 $1.41 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 SINGLE FAMILY ACCOUNTS 7,113 7,112 7,171 7,210 7,177 7,253 7,215 7,235 7,258 7,283 7,310 7,341 7,374 7,411 7,452 7,497 7,546 WATER USE 711,400 711,246 717,181 721,072 717,772 725,379 721,581 723,613 725,860 728,345 731,091 734,125 737,476 741,175 745,255 749,753 754,710 QUARTERLY RATE $20.00 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $21.25 $24.34 $27.42 $30.50 $30.50 $31.75 $32.75 $34.00 $35.25 $36.25 $37.50 $38.75 FIXTURE UNIT RATE $1.25 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.30 $1.60 $1.75 $1.90 $1.90 $1.98 $2.05 $2.13 $2.20 $2.27 $2.34 $2.42 • ------------------------------ REVENUE $569,063 $604,498 $609,543 $612,850 $610,045 $616,511 $657,872 $749,010 $840,797 $888,581 $928,486 $961,704 $1,002,967 $1,045,056 $1,080,619 $1,124,630 $1,169,800 APPENDIX C SENIOR CITIZEN RATES SEWER UTILITY'S ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT PERSONAL SERVICE $60,105 $104,848 $116,424 $78,063 $86,587 $90,916 $95,462 $100,235 $105,247 $110,509 $116,035 $121,837 $127,928 $134,325 $141,041 $148,093 $155,498 CONTRACTUAL SERVICE $165,590 $96,001 $113,335 $136,256 $154,876 $150,222 $157,733 $165,620 $173,901 $182,596 $191,726 $201,312 $211,378 $221,947 $233,044 $244,696 $256,931 MWCC CHARGES $637,256 $690,722 $811,271 $845,466 $806,390 $964,155 $1,052,414 $1,070,101 $1,092,769 $1,123,284 $1,179,448 $1,238,420 $1,300,341 $1,365,358 $1,433,626 $1,505,308 $1,580,573 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS $7,066 $11,069 $12,478 $15,294 $7,349 $11,184 $11,743 $12,330 $12,947 $13,594 $14,274 $14,987 $15,737 $16,524 $17,350 $18,217 $19,128 HEAT, LIGHT & POWER $10,393 $12,859 $14,940 $15,366 $15,485 $16,259 $17,072 $17,926 $18,822 $19,763 $20,751 $21,789 $22,878 $24,022 $25,223 $26,485 $27,809 INTEREST ON DEBT $0 $71,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $71,438 $77,445 $90,110 $105,846 $106,196 $111,506 $117,081 $122,935 $129,082 $135,536 $142,313 $149,428 $156,900 $164,745 $172,982 $181,631 $190,713 OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ---------------------------- TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,848 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124,430 $2,230,651 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL BILLABLE WATER 1,135,961 1,206,070 1,148,513 1,174,680 1,165,103 1,164,584 1,172,977 1,182,579 1,177,014 1,182,960 1,182,982 1,189,598 1,194,330 1,200,690 1,207,739 1,214,467 1,220,809 SINGLE FAMILY BILLABLE WATER 756,715 827,571 765,939 772,073 767,028 767,242 774,415 782,790 779,034 783,209 781,013 785,379 789,456 794,680 800,405 805,832 810,895 NUMBER OF REISDENTIAL CONNECTIONS 8,141 8,183 8,299 8,397 8,439 8,519 8,604 8,694 8,790 8,893 9,001 9,117 9,240 9,371 9,510 9,659 9,818 NUMBER OF SENIOR CONNECTIONS 1,028 1,071 1,128 1187 1262 1266 1389 1459 1533 1610 1691 1776 1866 1960 2058 2162 2271 OPTION A: PRESENT RATE RATE $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 SENIORS 1,028 1,071 1,128 1,187 1,262 1,266 1,389 1,459 1,533 1,610 1,691 1,776 1,866 1,960 2,058 2,162 2,271 WATER USE 56,530 58,925 62,041 65,292 69,417 69,637 76,403 80,253 84,298 88,547 93,009 97,697 102,621 107,793 113,226 118,933 124,927 QUARTERLY RATE $10.00 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REVENUE $41,108 $44,993 $47,372 $49,854 $53,004 $53,172 $58,338 $61,278 $64,367 $67,611 $71,018 $74,598 $78,357 $82,307 $86,455 $90,812 $95,389 OPTION B: (OPERATING REVENUE + 1/2 OF INTEREST INCOME - OPERATING EXPENSE) RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.01 $1.07 $1.13 $1.13 $1.19 $1.23 $1.28 $1.33 $1.37 $1.42 $1.47 SENIORS 1,028 1,071 1,128 1,187 1,262 1,266 1,389 1,459 1,533 1,610 1,691 1,776 1,866 1,960 2,058 2,162 2,271 WATER USE 56,530 58,925 62,041 65,292 69,417 69,637 76,403 80,253 84,298 88,547 93,009 97,697 102,621 107,793 113,226 118,933 124,927 QUARTERLY RATE $10.00 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $12.18 $13.86 $15.54 $15.54 $16.36 $16.91 $17.60 $18.29 $18.84 $19.53 $20.21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REVENUE $41,108 $44,993 $47,372 $49,854 $53,004 $53,172 $63,005 $75,985 $90,110 $100,058 $110,681 $120,168 $131,355 $143,365 $155,120 $168,884 $183,642 OPTION C: (OPERATING REVENUE OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.04 $1.13 $1.22 $1.22 $1.27 $1.31 $1.36 $1.41 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 SENIORS 1,028 1,071 1,128 1,187 1,262 1,266 1,389 1,459 1,533 1,610 1,691 1,776 1,866 1,960 2,058 2,162 2,271 WATER USE 56,530 58,925 62,041 65,292 69,417 69,637 76,403 80,253 84,298 88,547 93,009 97,697 102,621 107,793 113,226 118,933 124,927 QUARTERLY RATE $10.00 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $10.50 $12.60 $14.69 $16.78 $16.78 $17.46 $18.01 $18.70 $19.39 $19.94 $20.63 $21.31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REVENUE $41,108 $44,993 $47,372 $49,854 $53,004 $53,172 $64,172 $79,633 $96,448 $108,027 $118,122 $127,983 $139,565 $151,988 $164,178 $178,399 $193,636 APPENDIX D I APARTMENT RATES SEWER UTILITY'S ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT PERSONAL SERVICE $60,105 $104,848 $116,424 $78,063 $86,587 $90,916 $95,462 $100,235 $105,247 $110,509 $116,035 $121,837 $127,928 $134,325 $141,041 $148,093 $155,498 CONTRACTUAL SERVICE $165,590 $96,001 $113,335 $136,256 $154,876 $150,222 $157,733 $165,620 $173,901 $182,596 $191,726 $201,312 $211,378 $221,947 $233,044 $244,696 $256,931 MWCC CHARGES $637,256 $690,722 $811,271 $845,466 $806,390 $964,155 $1,052,414 $1,070,101 $1,092,769 $1,123,284 $1,179,448 $1,238,420 $1,300,341 $1,365,358 $1,433,626 $1,505,308 $1,580,573 SUPPLIES & MATERIALS $7,066 $11,069 $12,478 $15,294 $7,349 $11,184 $11,743 $12,330 $12,947 $13,594 $14,274 $14,987 $15,737 $16,524 $17,350 $18,217 $19,128 HEAT, LIGHT 6 POWER $10,393 $12,859 $14,940 $15,366 $15,485 $16,259 $17,072 $17,926 $18,822 $19,763 $20,751 $21,789 $22,878 $24,022 $25,223 $26,485 $27,809 INTEREST ON DEBT $0 $71,712 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $71,438 $77,445 $90,110 $105,846 $106,196 $111,506 $117,081 $122,935 $129,082 $135,536 $142,313 $149,428 $156,900 $164,745 $172,982 $181,631 $190,713 OTHER $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ------------------------------ TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT $951,848 $1,064,656 $1,158,558 $1,196,291 $1,176,883 $1,344,242 $1,451,506 $1,489,147 $1,532,767 $1,585,282 $1,664,546 $1,747,774 $1,835,162 $1,926,921 $2,023,267 $2,124,430 $2,230,651 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL BILLABLE WATER 1,135,961 1,206,070 1,148,513 1,174,680 1,165,103 1,164,584 1,172,977 1,182,579 1,177,014 1,182,960 1,182,982 1,189,598 1,194,330 1,200,690 1,207,739 1,214,467 1,220,809 APARTMENT BILLABLE WATER 222,552 222,552 222,762 228,153 228,503 230,719 232,957 235,217 237,499 239,802 242,128 244,477 246,848 249,243 251,661 254,102 256,566 NUMBER OF APARTMENT UNITS 3,179 3,179 3,182 3,259 3,264 3,296 3,328 3,360 3,392 3,425 3,459 3,492 3,526 3,560 3,595 3,630 3,665 OPTION A: PRESENT RATE RATE $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 APARTMENT UNITS 3,179 3,179 3,182 3,259 3,264 3,296 3,328 3,360 3,392 3,425 3,459 3,492 3,526 3,560 3,595 3,630 3,665 • WATER USE 222,552 222,552 222,762 228,153 228,503 230,719 232,957 235,217 237,499 239,802 242,128 244,477 246,848 249,243 251,661 254,102 256,566 QUARTERLY RATE $14.00 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 REVENUE $178,024 $189,468 $189,647 $194,236 $194,534 $196,421 $198,327 $200,250 $202,193 $204,154 $206,134 $208,134 $210,153 $212,191 $214,250 $216,328 $218,426 OPTION B: (OPERATING REVENUE + 1/2 OF INTEREST INCOME = OPERATING EXPENSE) RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.01 $1.07 $1.13 $1.13 $1.19 $1.23 $1.28 $1.33 $1.37 $1.42 $1.47 APARTMENT UNITS 3,179 3,179 3,182 3,259 3,264 3,296 3,328 3,360 3,392 3,425 3,459 3,492 3,526 3,560 3,595 3,630 3,665 WATER USE 222,552 222,552 222,762 228,153 228,503 230,719 232,957 235,217 237,499 239,802 242,128 244,477 246,848 249,243 251,661 254,102 256,566 QUARTERLY RATE $14.00 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $16.53 $18.16 $19.78 $19.78 $20.83 $21.53 $22.40 $23.28 $23.98 $24.85 $25.73 REVENUE $178,024 $189,468 $189,647 $194,236 $194,534 $196,421 $218,966 $242,891 $267,084 $271,018 $288,133 $300,707 $315,966 $331,493 $344,775 $360,824 $377,153 OPTION C: (OPERATING REVENUE OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE $0.90 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $1.04 $1.13 $1.22 $1.22 $1.27 $1.31 $1.36 $1.41 $1.45 $1.50 $1.55 APARTMENT UNITS 3,179 3,179 3,182 3,259 3,264 3,296 3,328 3,360 3,392 3,425 3,459 3,492 3,526 3,560 3,595 3,630 3,665 WATER USE 222,552 222,552 222,762 228,153 228,503 230,719 232,957 235,217 237,499 239,802 242,128 244,477 246,848 249,243 251,661 254,102 256,566 QUARTERLY RATE $14.00 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $14.90 $17.05 $19.20 $21.35 $21.35 $22.23 $22.93 $23.80 $24.68 $25.38 $26.25 $27.13 REVENUE $178,024 $189,468 $189,647 $194,236 $194,534 $196,421 $225,854 $256,801 $288,357 $292,530 $307,503 $320,265 $335,714 $351,433 $364,908 $381,153 $397,678 APPENDIX E WATER UTILITY'S ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS .� DESCRIPTION 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT PERSONAL SERVICE $123,375 $134,811 $138,036 $151,946 $155,547 $163,324 $171,491 $180,065 $189,068 $198,522 $208,448 $218,870 $229,814 $241,304 $253,370 $266,038 $279,340 CONTRACTUAL SERVICE $88,384 $92,293 $142,408 $141,227 $206,429 $140,856 $147,898 $155,293 $163,058 $171,211 $179,771 $188,760 $198,198 $208,108 $218,513 $229,439 $240,911 SUPPLIES 6 MATERIALS $28,241 $51,882 $21,133 $56,578 $16,608 $36,633 $38,464 $40,388 $42,407 $44,527 $46,754 $49,091 $51,546 $54,123 $56,830 $59,671 $62,655 HEAT, LIGHTS POWER $68,303 $98,118 $95,688 $110,020 $100,374 $105,393 $110,662 $116,195 $122,005 $128,105 $134,511 $141,236 $148,298 $155,713 $163,499 $171,674 $180,257 INTEREST ON DEBT $20,390 $18,782 $17,272 $15,713 $14,154 $12,334 $10,375 $8,242 $5,844 $3,490 $1,225 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 DEPRECIATION EXPENSE $113,622 $113,978 $145,128 $136,314 $194,089 $237,036 $248,888 $261,332 $274,398 $288,118 $302,524 $317,651 $333,533 $350,210 $367,720 $386,106 $405,412 OTHER $290 $217 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE REQUIREMENT $442,605 $510,081 $559,665 $611,798 $687,201 $695,576 $727,779 $761,515 $796,781 $833,974 $873,233 $915,609 $961,389 $1,009,458 $1,059,931 $1,112,928 $1,168,574 BILLABLE WATER (1,000 GALLONS) 1,191,611 1,266,135 1,198,197 1,243,346 1,229,670 1,238,078 1,246,544 1,255,068 1,263,650 1,272,291 1,280,991 1,289,751 1,298,570 1,307,450 1,316,390 1,325,391 1,334,454 OPTION A: PRESENT RATE RATE $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 OPERATING REVENUE $504,269 $507,421 $443,565 $482,558 $546,817 $433,327 $436,291 $439,274 $442,278 $445,302 $448,347 $451,413 $454,499 $457,607 $460,736 $463,887 $467,059 REVENUE REQUIREMENT $442,605 $510,081 $559,665 $611,798 $687,201 $695,576 $727,779 $761,515 $796,781 $833,974 $873,233 $915,609 $961,389 $1, -009,458 $1,059,931 $1,112,928 $1,168,574 -- ---- ---- -- -------- -- --- ------ -- ----- °- -- OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) $61,664 ($2,660) ($116,100) ($129,240) ($140,384) ($262,248) ($291,488) ($322,241) ($354,503) ($388,672) ($424,886) ($464,196) ($506,889) ($551,851) ($599,195) ($649,041) ($701,515) ------------------- -- -- -- --- --- -- -- ------ --- - - -- -- ------------------------------- INTEREST REVENUE $502,833 $463,692 $439,016 $465,424 $485,462 $470,547 $491,377 $460,229 $420,132 $372,209 $318,049 $311,638 $302,485 $290,221 $274,523 $255,043 $231,403 UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $367,369 $565,879 $460,193 $594,827 $1,005,470 $1,213,769 $1,413,658 $1,551,646 $1,617,274 $1,600,811 $1,493,974 $1,341,416 $1,137,012 $875,381 $550,709 $156,711 ($313,402) RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL INVESTMENTS $4,067,369 $4,265,879 $4,160,193 $4,294,827 $4,705,470 $4,913,769 $5,113,658 $5,251,646 $5,317,274 $5,300,811 $5,193,974 $5,041,416 $4,837,012 $4,575,381 $4,250,709 $3,856,711 $3,386,598 OPTION B: (OPERATING REVENUE PLUS 112 OF INTEREST REVENUE - OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 $0.50 $0.55 $0.57 $0.60 $0.63 $0.66 $0.69 $0.72 OPERATING REVENUE $504,269 $507,421 $443,565 $482,558 $546,817 $433,327 $467,454 $533,404 $600,234 $636,146 $698,972 $736,120 $776,516 $819,039 $863,799 $910,912 $960,498 * 112 OF INTEREST REVENUE $245,688 $231,517 $215,190 $196,475 $174,261 $179,489 $184,873 $190,420 $196,132 $202,016 $208,077 REVENUE REQUIREMENT $442,605 $510,081 $559,665 $611,798 $687,201 $695,576 $727,779 $761,515 $796,781 $833,974 $873,233 $915,609 $961,389 $1,009,458 $1,059,931 $1,112,928 $1,168,574 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) $61,664 ($2,660) ($116,100) ($129,240) ($140,384) ($262,248) ($14,636) $3,406 $18,643 ($1,353) ($0) ($0) $0 $0 ($0) $0 $0 ---- -- - --- ------------------ ** INTEREST REVENUE $502,833 $463,692 $439,016 $465,424 $485,462 $470,547 $245,688, $231,517 $215,190 $196,475 $174,261 $179,489 $184,873 $190,420 $196,132 $202,016 $208,077 ----------- -- ---- ------- ------- -- --- - - - UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $367,369 $565,879 $460,193 $594,827 $1,005,470 $1,213,769 $1,444,821 $1,679,744 $1,913,577 $2,108,699 $2,282,960 $2,462,449 $2,647,322 $2,837,742 $3,033,874 $3,235,890 $3,443,967 RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL INVESTMENTS $4,067,369 $4,265,879 $4,160,193 $4,294,827 $4,705,470 $4,913,769 $5,144,821 $5,379,744 $5,613,577 $5,808,699 $5,982,960 $6,162,449 $6,347,322 $6,537,742 $6,733,874 $6,935,890 $7,143,967 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'-------------------------------------------------------- OPTION C: ( OPRATING REVENUE - OPERATING EXPENSE) 3 STEP INCREASE RATE 1 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.46 $0.57 $0.68 $0.68 $0.68 $0.71 $0.74 $0.77 $0.81 $0.84 $0.88 OPERATING REVENUE $504,269 $507,421 $443,565 $482,558 $546,817 $433,327 $504,851 $646,360 $789,782 $865,158 $873,233 $915,609 $961,389 $1,009,458 $1,059,931 $1,112,928 $1,168,574 REVENUE REQUIREMENT $442,605 $510,081 $559,665 $611,798 $687,201 $695,576 $727,779 $761,515 $796,781 $833,974 $873,233 $915,609 $961,389 $1,009,458 $1,059,931 $1,112,928 $1,168,574 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) $61,664 ($2,660) ($116,100) ($129,240) ($140,384) ($262,248) ($222,928) ($115,155) ($6,999) $31,184 ($0) ($0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ------------------------------- INTEREST REVENUE $502,833 $463,692 $439,016 $465,424 $485,462 $470,547 $491,377 $466,400 $442,677 $417,840 $385,090 $408,195 $432,687 $458,648 $486,167 $515,337 $546,257 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UNRESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $367,369 $565,879 $460,193 $594,827 $1,005,470 $1,213,769 $1,482,218 $1,833,463 $2,269,140 $2,718,164 $3,103,254 $3,511,449 $3,944,136 $4,402,784 $4,888,951 $5,404,288 $5,950,545 RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 -------------------------- -- --- --- ----- ------- ----- ---- -- ------------------------------- TOTAL INVESTMENTS $4,067,369 $4,265,879 $4,160,193 $4,294,827 $4,705,470 $4,913,769 $5,182,218 $5,533,463 $5,969,140 $6,418,164 $6,803,254 $7,211,449 $7p644,136$8,102,784 $8,588,951 $9,104,288 $9,650,545 * REFLECTS 1/2 OF EARNED INTEREST TO BE USED IN THE RATE CALCULATION AFTER 1986 ** REFLECTS 1/2 OF EARNED INTEREST NOT USED IN RATE CALCULATION AFTER 1986 A P P E N D I X F PUBLIC UTILITIES RESIDENTIAL RATE COMPARISON TABLE t * 1985 RATES SURVEYED BY THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE I WATER RATES I SEWER RATES I ANNUAL I UTILITY I UNIT SERVICE UNIT SERVICE CHARGES CITY I RATE UNIT CHARGE PERIOD I RATE UNIT CHARGE PERIOD I(1 SAC UNIT)( I I IBLAINE I $0.32 1000 GAL I $18.25 QUARTER $105.00 $120.00 $0.86 1000 GAL (BROOKLYN CENTER (PRESENT)( $0.35 1000 GAL i $21.25 QUARTER I I (APPLE VALLEY I $0.39 1000 GAL I I I I $125.00 I IST PAUL PARR I $0.55 1000 GAL I $0.75 1000 GAL I $130.00 IMINNETONKA I $0.70 1000 GAL I $0.95 1000 GAL I $165.00 (COTTAGE GROVE I $0.70 1000 GAL I $24.00 QUARTER I $166.00 ICRYSTAL I $0.68 100 C.F. I $21.00 QUARTER I $174.67 i IGOLDEN VALLEY I $0.98 1000 GAL I $20.00 QUARTER I $178.00 I IHASTINGS I $0.51 1000 GAL $3.80 QUARTER I $1.09 1000 GAL $1.50 QUARTER I $181.20 I IST CLOUD I $0.70 100 C.F. $6.00 QUARTER I $0.56 100 C.F. $192.00 IWOODBURY I $0.48 1000 GAL I I I $26.00 QUARTER I $192.00 I (BROOKLYN PARK I $0.65 1000 GAL I $32.00 QUARTER I $193.00 i INEW HOPE I $0.80 1000 GAL I $1.14 1000 GAL $194.00 $1.25 1000 GAL IDELANO I $0.75 1000 GAL I I I $200.00 I IMINNETONKA BEACH I $0.90 1000 GAL I $1.10 1000 GAL I $200.00 I IPLYMOUTH 1 $0.60 1000 GAL $1.50 MONTH I $1.33 1000 GAL $1.80 MONTH IOAkDALE I I $200.93 $0.60 1000 GAL I I $1.45 1000 GAL I $205.00 I IST LOUIS PARK I $0.43 100 C.F. $3.45 QUARTER I $0.84 100 C.F. $6.05 QUARTER I $207.33 IST ANTHONY I $0.45 100 C.F. I $1.11 100 C.F. ( $208.00 I ILAKEVILLE I $0.70 1000 GAL I $1.47 1000 GAL I $217.00 I ISTILLWATER ( $0.75 1000 GAL I $36.00 QUARTER $219.00 $0.85 l00 C.F. ICOLUMBIA HEIGHTS I $0.85 100 C.F. I I I I $226.67 I (EDEN PRAIRE I $0.95 1000 GAL I $1.35 1000 GAL $230.00 $0.83 100 C.F. $3.25 MONTH IANORA I $0.31 100 C.F. $3.25 MONTH I I ( $ 230.00 I IMO I $0.80 1000 GAL I $1.52 1000 GAL I $232.00 IHOPKINS I $0.85 1000 GAL I $1.50 1000 GAL I $235.00 ( IBLOOMINGTON I $0.96 1000 GAL $3.25 BI- MONTHLY I $1.02 1000 GAL $5.60 BI- MONTHLY I $251.10 ILITTLE CANADA I $1.35 1000 GAL $8.00 QUARTER I $28.00 QUARTER I $279.00 ILONG LAKE I $2.00 1000 GAL I $1.25 1000 GAL $325.0 IORONO I $1.03 1000 GAL $13.25 QUARTER ( 6 I $42.90 QUARTER I $327.60 I ISPRING PARK I $1.00 1000 GAL I $2.35 1000 GAL I I I i $ 335.00 (AVERAGES I $0.78 1000 GAL $7.50 QUARTER I $29.63 QUARTER $7.79 QUARTER I $207.89 I I I I I I IPRPOSED RATES I I I I I I (BROOKLYN CENTER (1987) I $0.40 1000 GAL I $23.59 QUARTER I $134.36 (BROOKLYN CENTER (1988) I $0.45 1000 GAL i $25.92 QUARTER I $148.68 I (BROOKLYN CENTER (1989) I $0.50 1000 GAL I $28.25 QUARTER I $163.00 I I I I I I S APPENDIX G UTILITY RATE IMPACT ANALYSIS (DESCRIPTION 1 1986 1 1987 1 1988 1 1989 1 1990 1 ISINGLE FAMILY 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 HEAVY /SUMMER 1 $57.65 1 $65.19 1 $72.72 1 $80.25 1 $80.25 1 HEAVY/WINTER 1 $29.48 1 $32.99 1 $36.50 1 $40.00 1 $40.00__1 I I I I I I I I AVERAGE /SUMMER 1 $31.75 1 $35.59 1 $39.42 1 $43.25 1 $43.25 1 AVERAGE/WINTER 1 $30.18 1 $33.79 1 $37.40 1 $41.00 1 $41.00 1 I I I f I I I I LIGHT /SUMMER 1 $25.25 1 $28.59 1 $31.92 1 $35.25 1 $35.25 1 1 LIGHT /WINTER 1 $25.25 1 $28.59 1 $31.92 1 $35.25 1 $35.25 1 1 I I I I I i ISENIORS I I I I I I 1 HEAVY /SUMMER 1 $29.23 1 $33.58 1 $37.94 1 $42.29 1 $42.29 1 HEAVY/WINTER 1 $14.50 1 $17.18 1 $19.86 1 $22.54 1 $22.54 1 AVERAGE /SUMMER 1 $15.05 1 $17.38 1 $19.86 1 $22.54 1 $22.54 1 1 AVERAGE/WINTER 1 $14.88 1 $17.18 1 $19.86 1 $22.54 1 $22.54 1 1 LIGHT /SUMMER 1 $14.50 1 $17.18 1 $19.86 1 $22.54 1 $22.54 1 1 LIGHT/WINTER 1 $14.50 1 $17.18 1 $19.86 1 $22.54 1 $22.54 1 [APARTMENT I I I I I I 1 HEAVY /SUMMER 1 $31.18 1 $35.13 1 $39.09 1 $43.03 1 $43.03 1 1 HEAVY/WINTER 1 $28.20 1 $31.73 1 $35.26 1 $38.78 1 $38.78 1 I I I I f i i 1 AVERAGE /SUMMER 1 $20.02 1 $22.38 1 $24.74 1 $27.09 1 $27.09 1 1 AVERAGE/WINTER 1 $20.11 1 $22.48 1 $24.86 1 $27.22 1 $27.22 1 ( 1 LIGHT /SUMMER 1 $18.90 1 $21.53 1 $24.16 1 $26.78 1 $26.78 1 1 LIGHT/WINTER 1 $18.90 1 $21.53 1 $24.16 1 $26.78 1 $26.78 1 IIND /COMMERCIAL 1 I 1 I I I I HEAVY /SUMMER 1$4,360.20 1$4,729.14 1$5,098.08 1$5,467.02 1$5,467.02 1 1 HEAVY/WINTER 1$4,187.30 1$4,541.61 1$4,895.92 1$5,250.23 1$5,250.23 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AVERAGE /SUMMER 1 $455.65 1 $494.21 1 $532.76 1 $571.32 1 $571.32 1 1 AVERAGE/WINTER 1 $272.35 1 $295.40 1 $318.44 1 $341.49 1 $341.49 1 1 LIGHT /SUMMER 1 $29.90 1 $32.43 1 $34.96 1 $37.49 1 $37.49 1 1 LIGHT /WINTER 1 $25.35 1 $27.50 1 $29.64 1 $31.79 1 $31.79 1 I I I I * NOTE: The above spreadsheet displays the impact the proposed rate increases would have on the various catagories of utility customers. Heavy, average and light refer to metered water consumption. The amounts shown above are quarterly bills to the subject accounts at the new proposed rates. APPENDIX H WATER AND SEWER P U P E 1 .60 1 .50 1 .4.0 1 .30 1.20 1 .1 0 1.00 J 0.90 0.80 0.70 J J 0.60 m 0.50 0.4.0 0.30 0.20 0.1 0 0.00 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 YEAR ❑ ',MATER PUMPED + SEWAGE PUMPED 2 .d SEWER UTILITY RATE $1.60 BASE RATE $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 w $1.20 $1 .1 0 $1.00 a 0.!q0 Ma 0 $0.70 0 0 60.60 w- $0.50 CL $0.40 50.30 $0.20 s0.1 0 $0.00 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 YEAR _ ❑ OPTION A + OPTION 8 OPTION C N SEWER UTILITY INVESTMENTS 13ASE RATE $5.00 54-,00 =0$3.00 52.00 $1.00 $0,00 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 19915 1997 D YEAR _ ❑ OPTION A + OPTION 8 o OPTION C w S EWER UTILITY FATES $40,00 SINGLE FAMILY $35.00 $30.00 $25,00 J � X20,00 $15,00 $10.00 $5,00 $0.00 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 D YEAR _ o OPTIO A + OPTION B OPTION 0 .r, SEWER UTILITY RATE $4 -O,00 SENIOR CITIZEN $30,00 $30,00 $25,00 Ld J $20.00 $15,00 X10.00 $0,00 $0,00 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 D YEAR _ o OPTION A + OPTION B OPTION 0 cn SEWER UTILITY DATES 0,00 APARTMENTS $35.00 $30,00 $25,00 J $20,00 D C $15.00 $10.00 $5,00 � X0,00 �0 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 D YEAR _ ❑ OPTION A + OPTION B OPTION 0 rn WATER UTILITY DATES $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 z $0.6( J < $0.50 0 Lu $0.3 $0.20 $0.10 0.00 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 D YEAR _ ❑ OPTION A + OPTION B o OPTION C WATER UTILITY INVESTMENTS $10.0 $8.0 $7,0 °- S5.0 X4-.0 $3.0 $2.0 $1.0 $0,0 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 YEAR _ ❑ OPTION A + OPTION 8 OPTION C OD On Hennepin Conservation District MEMORANDUM TO: Hennepin County Mayors, City Council Members, and City Managers FROM: Sever Peterson, Supervisor DATE: 20 March, 1987 SUBJECT: HF 373 and SF 353, Ground Water Bill for Hennepin County. On 18 March, Senator Tad Jude, the Senate author, introduced a "delete everything" amendment to SF 353. On 19 March, Representative Darby Nelson, the House author, introduced a "delete everything" amendment to HF 373. Both houses passed the amendments. This means that both bills are now completely different. Please discard all copies of the old • bills and any bill summaries that you may have. Copies of the new bills are enclosed. The bill is incorporated within the metropolitan surface water management act (M.S. 473.875- 473.883, also known as "chapter 509 It allows, but does not require, any county in the metropolitan area to adopt a ground water plan. If a county adopts a ground water plan, watersheds would add a groud water element to their watershed plans. As is already required by the existing act, cities would use the watershed plan to prepare their local water management plan. Under the act and the new bill, only watersheds have any review, comment, or approval authority over the city plan. If a county adopts a ground water plan, watershed management organization plans must be amended to be consistent with the county ground water plan. The county shall review watershed plans for consistency and may disapprove all or a part of the watershed plan if there are substantial adverse effects or substantial departures from the ground water plan. We hope the major changes that have been made respond in a Positive and productive manner to the concerns raised by muncipalities. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact Pat Kennedy or James Piegat in our office. 205 Ridge Plaza Bldg. 12450 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Telephone (612) 544 -8572 r Abstract of HF 373 and SF 353: All sections of the bill amend portions of the metropolitan surface water management act. Section 1 of the bill amends the act to include ground water protection as a purpose of metropolitan water management programs. Sections 2 and 3 amend the act to define "ground water plan" and "ground water systems ". Section 4 amends the act to require that watershed plans be updated before the expiration of the period covered by those watershed plans and to require that watershed plans be revised to be consistent with the county ground water plan within a year following adoption of the county ground water plan. Section 5 amends the act to require county that adopts a ground water plan to review watershed plans for consistency with the county plan. The county may disapprove a part or all of a watershed plan, but only for substantial adverse effect on or substantial • departure from the-ground water plan. Section 6 amends the act to allow mediation by metropolitan council to resolve differences among local governments regarding the plan. Section 7 amends the act to add the commissioner of health as a reviewer of watershed plans and to allow the water resources board to make final decisions regarding consistency between watershed plans and county ground water plans. Section 8 amends the act to provide that amendments to a watershed plan necessary to recognize a count P rY g Y round g water plan go through the review process for amendments as already provided. Section 9 amends the act to authorize, but not require, metro counties to adopt a ground water plan. Provisions are made for coordination between the county and local units of government, a local advisory commmittee,_and review by cities, watersheds, adjacent counties, metropolitan council, state agencies, and, finally, the water resources board. General standards and contents of the county plan are prescribed. 3/19/87 (COUNSEL ) PSW SCS0353A -4 1 I 1 M ............... moves to amend S. F. No. 353 as follows: 2 Delete everything after the enacting clause and insert: 3 "Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.875, is 4 amended to read: 5 473.875 (SHRPABE METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT PR66RAM 6 PROGRAMS PURPOSES.) . 7 The purpose of the surface water management_ programs 8 required by sections 473.875 to 473.883 is to protect, preserve 9 and use natural surface and ground water storage and retention 10 systems in order to (a) reduce to the greatest practical extent 11 the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive 12 volumes and rates of runoff, (b) protect and improve surface and 13 ground water quality, (c) prevent flooding and erosion from 14 surface flows, (d) promote ground water recharge, (e) protect 15 and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational 16 facilities, and (f) secure the other benefits associated with 17 the proper management of surface and ground water. 18 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.876, is 19 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 20 Subd. 2a. (GROUND WATER PLAN.) "Ground water plan" means a 21 county plan adopted under section 9. 22 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.876, is 23 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 24 Subd. 2b. (GROUND WATER SYSTEM.) "Ground water system" 1 3/19/87 (COUNSEL ) PSW SCS0353A -4 1 means one of the 14 principal aquifers of the state as defined 2 by the United States Geoloqical Survey in the Water Resources • 3 Investi ations'81 -51, entitled "Desi nation of Principal Water 4 Supply Aquifers in Minnesota" (August 1981), and its revisions 5 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.878, 6 subdivision 3, is amended to read: 7 Subd. 3. (GENERAL STANDARDS.) The watershed management 8 plan shall extend through the year 1990 or any year thereafter 9 which is evenly divisible by five. The plan must be updated 10 before the expiration of the period covered by the plan The 11 plan must be revised within one year following the adoption or 12 amendment of the ground water plan The plan shall contain the 13 elements required by subdivision 4. Each element shall be set 14 out in the degree of detail and prescription necessary to 15 accomplish the purposes of sections 473.875 to 473.883, 16 considering the character of existing and anticipated physical 17 and hydrogeologic conditions, land use, and development and the 18 severity of existing and a0ticipated water management problems 19 in the watershed. The plan shall be prepared and submitted for 20 review under subdivision 5 not later than December 31, 1986. 21 Existing plans of a watershed management organization shall 22 remain in force and effect until amended or superseded by plans 23 adopted under sections 473.875 to 473.883. Existing or amended 24 plans of a watershed management organization which meet the 25 _requirements of sections 473.875 to 473.883 may be submitted for 26 review under subdivision 5. 27 Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.878, 28 subdivision 5, is amended to rEad: 29 Subd. 5. [ LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Upon completion of 30 the plan bu't before final adoption by the organization, the 31 organization shall submit the plan for review and comment to all 32 counties, soil and water conservation districts, towns, and 33 statutory and home rule charter cities having territory within 34 the watershed. Any local government unit which expects that 35 substantial amendment of its local comprehensive plan will be 36 necessary in order to bring local water management into 2 3/19/87 (COUNSEL j PSW SCS0353A -4 1 conformance with the watershed plan shall describe as 2 specifically as possible, within its comments, the amendments to 3 the local plan which it expects will be necessary. 4 Subd. Sa. (COUNTY REVIEW; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; 5 GROUND WATER PLAN.) (a) Sixty days after the submission to local 6 government units for comment, the organization shall submit the 7 plan, any comments received, and any appropriate amendments to 8 the plan, to the board of the county or counties having 9 territory within the watershed. 10 (b) The county shall approve or disapprove projects in the 11 capital improvement program which may require the provision of 12 county funds pursuant to section 112.60, subdivision 2, or 13 473.883. _ 14 (c) If the county has a ground water plan, the county shall_ 15 review the watershed plan for consistency with the county ground 16 water plan. The county may disapprove the entire watershed plan 17 or part of the plan if there is a substantial adverse effect on . 18 or substantial departure from the ground water plan. If the 19 county disapproves all or part of the watershed plan, the 20 watershed plan must be submitted for review under subdivision 6 21 and review and final decision under subdivision 7. The county 22 may delegate its review under this paragraph to a soil and water 23 conservation district. 24 (d) The county shall have 60 days to complete its review of 25 the - capital - improvement- program. If the county fails to 26 complete its review within the prescribed period, unless an 27 extension is agreed to by the organization the plan and program 28 shall be deemed approved. , 29 (e) If the watershed extends into more than one county and 30 one or more counties disapprove of all or part of a capital 31 improvement plan or program while the other county or counties 32 approve, the plan and program shall be submitted to- the -water 33 resources -board for review parseant -to under subdivision 6 and 34 review and final decision under subdivision 7. 35 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.878, 36 subdivision 6, is amended to read: 3 3/19/87 [COUNSEL ) PSW SCS0353A -4 1 Subd. 6. (REVIEW BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.[ After + 2 completion of the review under subdivision 5, the plan and all 3 comments received shall be submitted to the metropolitan council 4 for review. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in 5 sections 112.46 and 473.165, the council shall review the plan 6 in the same manner and with the same authority and effect as 7 provided for the council's review of the comprehensive plans of 8 local government units under section 473.175. The council shall 9 comment on the apparent conformity with metropolitan system 10 plans of any anticipated amendments to local comprehensive 11 plans. Differences among local governmental agencies regarding 12 the plan must be mediated. The council may serve as mediator. 13 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.878, 14 subdivision 7, is amended to read: is Subd. 7. [REVIEW BY STATE AGENCIES.) (a) After completion 16 of the review under subdivision 6, the plan and all comments 17 received shall be submitted to the commissioner commissioners of . 18 natural resources and health and the director of the pollution 19 control agency for review and comment on the consistency of the 20 plan with state laws and rules relating to water and related 21 land resources, and to the water resources board for review 22 under section 112.46. 23 (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, the 24 water resources board shall review the plan as provided in 25 section 112.46. The board shall review the plan for conformance 26 with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections 473.875 to 27 473.883. The board shall not prescribe a plan, but may 28 disapprove all or parts of a plan which it determines is not in 29 conformance with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections 30 473.875 to 473.883. 31 (c) If the plan or part of the plan is disapproved by a 32 county under subdivision Sa, paragraph (c), the board shall ma 33 a final decision on the issue. If the plan or capital 34 improvement program is the subject of a dispute between counties 35 under subdivision Sa, paragraph (e) the water resources board 36 shall make a final decision on the issue. The decision - shall -be 4 3/19/87 [COUNSEL J PSW SCS0353A -4 1 decisions of the board under this paragraph are binding on the • 2 organization and the counties involved. 3 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 1986, section 473.878, 4 subdivision 9, is amended to read: 5 Subd. 9. [AMENDMENTS.) To the extent and in the manner 6 required by the adopted plan, all amendments to the adopted plan 7 shall be submitted to the towns, cities, county, and other 8 agencies for review in accordance with the provisions of 9 subdivisions 5; 5a, 6, and 7. Amendments necessary to recognize 10 a county ground water plan, as required by subdivision 3, must 11 be submitted for review in accordance with subdivisions 5, Sa, 12 6, and 7. 13 Sec. 9. (473.8785) (GROUND WATER PLANS.) 14 Subdivision 1. (AUTHORITY.) A metropolitan county may 15 prepare and adopt a ground water plan in accordance with this 16 section. , 17 Subd. 2. (RESPONSIBLE UNITS.) The county may prepare and 18 adopt a ground water plan or, upon request of a soil and water 19 conservation district, the county may delegate to the soil and 20 water conservation district the preparation and adoption of all 21 or part of a plan and other county responsibilities regarding 22 the plan under this section and section 473.873. 23 Subd. 3. (LOCAL COORDINATION.) To assure the coordination 24 of efforts of all units of government during the preparation and 25 implementation of watershed and ground water plans, the county 26 shall conduct meetings with local units of government and 27 watershed management organiza and may enter into 28 agreements with local units of government and watershed 29 management organizations establishinq the responsibilities 30 during the preparation and implementation of the water plans. 31 Subd. 4. [ADVISORY COMMITTEE.) To assist in the 32 development of the ground water plan, the county shall seek the 33 advice of the Minnesota geological survey, the departments of 34 health and natural resources, the pollution control agency, and 35 other appropriate local, state, and federal agencies, and shall 36 name an advisory committee of 15 members. The committee must 5 3/19/87 (COUNSEL ] PSW SCS0353A -4 1 include representatives of various interests, like construction, ' 2 agriculture, hydrogeology, and well drilling. At least four • 3 members of the committee must be from the public at large with 4 no direct pecuniary interest in any project involving ground 5 water protection and at least seven members must be from local 6 units of government. The county shall consult the advisory 7 committee on the development, content, and implementation of the 8 plan, including particularly the relationship of the ground 9 water plan and existing watershed and local water management 10 plans and the allocation of governmental authority and 11 responsibilities during implementation. 12 Subd. 5. (GENERAL STANDARDS.] The groundwater plan must 13 extend through the year 1995 or any year after that is evenly 14 divisible by five. The plan must contain the elements required 15 by subdivision 6. Each element must be set out in the degree of 16 detail and prescription necessary to accomplish the purposes of 17 - sections 473.875 to 473.883, considering the character of • 18 existing and anticipated physical and hydrogeologic conditions, 19 land use, and development and the severity of existing and 20 anticipated water management problems in the watershed. To the 21 fullest extent possible consistent with ground water protection, 22 a county shall incorporate into its ground water plan the 23 relevant provisions of existing plans adopted by watershed 24 mans ement or anizations having jurisdiction wholly or partl 25 within the county. 26 Subd. 6. (CONTENTS.) Aground water plan must: 27 (1) cover the entire area within the county; 28 (2) describe existing and expected changes to the physical 29 environment, land use, and development in the county; 30 (3) summarize available information about the ground water 31 and related resources in the county, including existing and 32 potential distribution, availability, quality, and use; 33 (4) state the goals, objectives, scope, and priorities of 34 ground water protection in the county; 35 (5) contain standards, criteria, and guidelines for the 36 protection of ground water pollution and for various types 6 3/19/87 [COUNSEL ) PSW SCS0353A -4 a 1 of land uses in environmentally sensitive areas critical areas, 2 or previously contaminated areas; 3 (6) describe relationships and possible conflicts be 4 the ground water plan and the plans of other counties, loca 5 government units, and watershed management organizations in the 6 affected ground water system; 7 (7) set forth standards and guidelines for implementation 8 of the plan by watershed management organizations and local 9 units of government; and 10 (8) include a procedure for amending the ground water plan. 11 Subd. 7. [LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT.) Upon completion of 12 the ground water plan but before final adoption by the county, 13 the county shall submit plan for review and comment to each 14 soil and water conservation district, town, statutory and home 15 rule charter city, and watershed management organization having 16 territory within the county. The county also shall submit the 17 plan to any other county or watershed management organization or 18 district in the affected .ground water system that could affect 19 or be aff by implementation of the plan. ''A political 20 subdivision or watershed management organization that expects 21 that substantial amendment of its plans would be necessary in 22 order to bring them into conformance with the county ground 23 water plan shall describe as specifically as possible, within 24 its comments, the amendments that it expects would be necessary. 25 Reviewing entities have sixty days to review and comment. 26 Subd. 8. [REVIEW BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.) After 27 completion of the review under subdivision 7, the an and all 28 comments received must be submitted to the metropolitan co uncil 29 for review. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in 30 sections 112.46 and 473.165, the council shall review the plan 31 in the same manner and with the same authority and effect as 32 provided for the council's review of the comprehensive plans of 33 local government units under section 473.175. The council shall 34 comment on the apparent conformity with metropolitan system 35 plans of any anticipated amendments to watershed plans and local 36 comprehensive plans. Differences among local governmental 7 3/19/87 (COUNSEL ) PSW SCS0353A -4 r l agencies regarding the plan must be mediated. The council may ` 2 serve as mediator. 3 Subd. 9. [REVIEW BY STATE AGENCIES.) After completion of 4 the review under subdivision 8, the plan and all comments 5 received must be submitted to the commissioners of natural 6 resources and health and the director of the pollution control 7 agency for review and comment on the consistency of the plan 8 with state laws and rules relating to water and related land 9 resources, and to the water resources board for review under 10 section 112.46. Except as otherwise provided in this 11 subdivision, the water resources'board shall review the plan as 12 provided in section 112.46. The board shall review the plan for 13 conformance with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections 14 473.875 to 473.883. The board may not prescribe a plan, but 15 shall approve all or parts of a plan that it determines are in 16 conformance with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections 17 473.875 to 473.883. 18 Subd. 10. (ADOPTION; IMPLEMENTATION.) The county shall 19 adopt and begin to implement its ground water plan within 120 20 days after approval of the plan by the water resources board._ 21 Subd. 11. (AMENDMENTS.) To the extent and in the manner 22 required by the adopted plan, all amendments to the adopted plan r 23 must be submitted to the towns, cities, county, and other 24 agencies for review in accordance with subdivisions 7 to 9. - 25 Delete the title and insert: 26 "A bill for an act 27 relating to metropolitan water management; authorizing 28 metropolitan counties to adopt ground water plaits; 29 amending Minnesota Statutes 19 sections 473.875; 30 473.876, by adding subdivisions; 473.878, subdivisions 31 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9; proposing coding for new law in 32 Minnesota Statutes, chapter 473." 8 i c LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. MINNEAPOLIS, M I N N ESOTA SS402 TELEPHONE CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. (612) 336 -4200 JAMES D. LARSON. P.A THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD. P.A. CRAIG M. MERTZ March 20, 1987 ROGER J. FELLOWS Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Water Management Organization Members Re: Soil and Water Conservation /Special Legislation Gentlemen: The push for Legislation by the Soil and Water Conservation people and the sponsers, Darby Nelson and Tad Jude has been slowed but is still going forward. After the authors became aware of the opposition to their original bills, they have pulled that legislation and replaced it with new proposed bill. The current proposal is a revision of House File 373 and is now called the Metro Ground Water Bill. The bill was first seen by the authors themselves on the evening of March 17, 1987 when the authors met with various persons interested in the legislation. Jim Willis the manager of Plymouth, Keith Meland a Councilmember from St. Louis Park, and an attorney representing the City of St. Louis Park were present along with Charles Darth of Brooklyn Park and myself. There were representatives of the various state agencies and members of the Soil and Water Conservation District present. Jim Willis and myself the most vehemently in opposition to what was being proposed and asked for more time. When the new bill was brought in by the draftsmen we went over it and this was done in a cursory manner and therefore no spcific opposition to the bill was mentioned at this meeting. The authors appeared stunned by the opposition of the City members and at one time I thought they might take heed to our request that the matter be withdrawn or continued until Water Management Cities, etc., had an opportunity to comment on the legislation. I spent in excess of three hours with the authors and other staff personnel that night and Darby Nelson indicated that he was hesitant the next day to present the matter to the Local Urban Affairs Committee. I did not go to that meeting on Wednesday, but Jim Willis did along with Vern Peterson of the Association of Metropolitan WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Page 2 March 20, 1987 Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Water Management Organization Members Municipalities who was also present at the original meeting with the authors and who has been the most vocal opponent to date. I am now informed that the legislation moved out of that committee with unanimous vote of approval even though Mr. Willis and Vern Peterson spoke in opposition. I have drawn a resolution relating to the new bill which commends the author for studying the subject but asks them to delay until a productive package can be put together for the 1988 legislature. On the morning of March 19, 1987 this resolution was read to the executive committee of the Shingle Creek WMO which was meeting in Brooklyn Park and they unanimously wanted to adopt a resolution requesting some time to study this subject. At noon on March 19, 1987 the Bassett Creek Water Managment Commission met and Fred Moore, Lee Gustafson, Bill Monk, and Mary Hoshaw were all present to review the resolution. It was adopted unanimously by the eight members present from the Bassett Creek Commission. Fred, Bill, Marv, and Lee all ask that the resolution be transmitted on to the Shingle Creek people with the understanding that they are desirous of adopting it by Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Commissions. I have today provided Charles Darth, the Lobbyist for the City of Brooklyn Park with copies of the resolution and have spent a good time on the telephone with the author Darby Nelson. In spite of the fact that he feels he has the votes to pass the legislation he has agreed that Vern Peterson of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and myself and select other opponents to the bill can meet with him on Friday, March 27. Vern Peterson is trying to line up that meeting now and at this time they want a limited number of people present and it suggested that it be Vern Peterson, Charles Darth, Jim Willis, Fred Moore, representatives from St. Louis Park and myself. We are trying to proceed on that basis. I am enclosing, herewith, for each of you copies of resolutions for the Shingle Creek and /or West Mississippi WMO's. We ask that you get these approved by your councils if at all possible prior to March 27, and that you call your Legislators and /or Tad Jude Jude or Darby Nelson to try to get the process slowed down. It is my understanding that Tad Jude is taking a more reserved position on the bill than he had previously WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ Page 3 March 20, 1987 because of the opposition which is being raised by some of his communities. Of the seven members who have met and /or reviewed the resolution and who are members of the Shingle Creek Water Management Organization, have indicated of being in favor and I am calling Mark Hanson, Gene Hawkinson, and Jack Bittle and will try to obtain their approval so that we can do this by telephone other than having to have a special meeting. That appears to be the desire of all the commissioners if possible and I see no reason why we can't do this on a telephone vote and represent that everybody has had the resolution and have voted unanimously to request the authors to delay. I hope that any of you who receive this on Monday and want to get further information give me a call and I will try to provide you with any additional information. Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson CAP Enclosure cc: Sy Knapp Neil Johnson Jack Bittle William Monk Gerry Butcher Marvin Hoshaw Mark Hanson Eugene Hakanson Fred Moore Lee Gustafson Judie Anderson RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR A METROPOLITAN GROUND WATER STUDY AND PLAN WHEREAS, the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District has previously had two bills drafted and introduced in the 1987 Minnesota Legislature, and WHEREAS, this Commission has studied and reviewed the early legislation relating to erosion and sediment control and ground water and has taken a strong position in opposition to the bills as drafted and introduced in the Legislature, and WHEREAS, this Commission is now advised that the original legislation has been withdrawn or at least the authors, Senator Tad Jude and Representative Darby Nelson, have indicated that they will revise House File 373 and will not be pursuing House File 360 and have proposed to make extensive changes in House File 373 which in effect allows but does not require metropolitan area ground water plans, and WHEREAS, this Commission has just been presented with the draft of the proposed revision as obtained at a meeting on March 17, 1987, with the authors being Senator Tad Jude and Representative Darby Nelson, and the individual Commissioners and their member cities have not had an opportunity to review the proposed legislation, and WHEREAS, the individual member cities of this Commission, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, and other agencies including water management organizations and watersheds all have strenuous regulations concerning water quantity and the underground water supply, and WHEREAS, this Commission and each of its individual members is firmly committed to improving water quantity, controlling pollution, and promoting ground water recharge by putting waters back into the soil which are as free of pollution as possible and commend the authors of the proposed legislation and others interested in clean water, and WHEREAS, this Commission strongly believes that if it is deemed necessary to enact additional legislation as it relates to ground water or water quantity, that the water management organizations, watersheds, cities, and consulting engineers and other technical experts all have expertise which could aid and assist the Legislature in drafting and adopting a well thought out piece of legislation which would be beneficial to all the residents of the metropolitan area who now reside therein as well as to future generations, and WHEREAS, the incorporation of a ground water bill into the surface water management act may confuse both the process and the existing legislation and to rush into such legislation at this time on the premise that it will be included in the original plans is not consistent with the existing statutes or the water management plan preparation process, and i WHEREAS, West Mississippi Water Management Commission has completed its draft P and has it in the hands of the communities and other reviewing agencies and there is no way that a ground water plan per se could be included in the plan without delaying the process for several years, and therefore any effort to rush such a requirement into the law will only confuse the existing planning process which is taking place throughout the seven county metropolitan area, and WHEREAS, this Commission desires to aid and assist the Minnesota Legislature, the County of Hennepin, the Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation District, and all others who are interested in preserving, protecting, and improving the ground water quantity and supply, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the West Mississippi Water Management Commission, as follows: 1. The authors of the proposed ground water management program are commended for their concern in protecting the area's aquifiers, supplying water to residents of Minnesota and /or other states which might draw water from the soil which is a part of the recharging process within this state's boundaries. 2. We sincerely believe that the watershed districts, water management organizations, cities, counties, and other persons having expertise in the field of water, including consultants hired by all of these agencies, have a great deal of experience, both technical and practical, to offer to the legislators and to others drafting legislation or promoting laws to improve and protect the ground water quantity and quality. We believe that the legislators would be well advised to seek the consultation of our Commission and others who have worked in the field of water for a long period of time, and we offer our complete and total cooperation to Senator Jude and Representative Nelson and /or other legislators working on drafting legislation in this field. 3. We hereby request that each legislator r q e resentin areas a representing within the West Mississippi Water Management Commission boundaries use their best efforts to delay legislation in this field until our Commission and other watersheds and water management organizations, along with their member cities, have an opportunity to study the proposed legislation. The enactment of legislation which mandates the expenditure of public funds by this Commission and /or our member municipalities should be well thought out, and there is no emergency situation that the legislation is designed to correct. There are already a large number of agencies working in the field to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, and any additional studies and /or reports or requirements should be designed to avoid duplication and waste of public funds. We further believe that if any legislation is to go forward at this time, it should relate basically o the collection of data which will eventually be necessary to promulgate a ground water plan. We do encourage all agencies working in this field to continue to prepare and collect data, and we urge them to cooperate with any central agency collecting such data for review and study. 4. We hereby recommend to our legislators that any legislation or action be delayed until a task force has been created and has studied the subject. We recommend that persons appointed to such advisory board or task force be selected from cities, water management organizations, consulting engineers, and others who are working daily to manage and improve water quantity and water quality, both on the surface and underground. 5. A copy of this resolution shall be sent to each legislator representing all or any portion of cities who are members of this Commission. A copy shall be sent to each member City with a letter requesting that their City Council adopt a similar resolution opposing the proposed legislation until the Commission and the water management organizations have had an opportunity to study and provide input to the proposed legislation. Commissioner moved the adoption of the above resolution. Commissioner seconded the motion. Upon vote being taken, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated Chairman Attest: Secretary Todd -- 3/16/87 REVISION OF H.F. 373 -- METRO GROUND WATER This is not in bill form yet. It incorporates proposed changes directly into the metropolitan water management act. Generally, the revision contains the following provisions: Ground water plans • allows but does not require metropolitan county ground water plans • requires local, metro, and state review of a county ground water plan, in a manner that generally parallels the existing review structure for watershed plans Consistency of ground water and watershed plans • requires that watershed plans be amended within one year to be consistent with (or conform to) a ground water plan • offers several options for county review of watershed plans to assure consistency or conformity of watershed plans with a ground water plan • builds into the existing structure a mediation and conflict resolution process for disputes between ground water and watershed plans Local land use controls o confines county level review /approval powers to the planning level (watershed plans), 8 w ed lans leaving all "implementation" local land use plans and controls) at the local and watershed level, in accordance with the existing • metropolitan water management law. 3 -17 -87 [RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 473.875 [SBRPAeE METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2 PROGRAMS PURPOSES.) 3 The purpose of the sarfaee water management programs Y to 4 required b sections 473.875 to 473.883 is P rotect preserve 5 and use natural surface and ground water storage and retention 6 systems in order to (a) reduce to the greatest practical extent public ca 7 the P expenditures enditures necessary to control excessive p p 8 volumes and rates of runoff, (b) protect and improve surface and 9 rg ound water quality, (c) prevent flooding and erosion from 10 surface flows, (d) promote ground water recharge, (e) protect 11 and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational 12 facilities, and (f) secure the other benefits associated with 13 the proper management of surface and ground water. 14 473.876 [DEFINITIONS.) 15 Subdivision 1. (SCOPE.) For the purposes of sections 16 473.875 to 473.883, the following terms have the meanings given 17 them. 18 Subd. 2. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.) "Capital 19 improvement program" means an itemized program for at least a 20 five year prospective period, and any amendments to it, subject 21 to at least biennial review, setting forth the schedule, timing, 22 and details of specific contemplated capital improvements by 23 year, together with their estimated cost, the need for each 24 improvement, financial sources, and the financial effect that 1 } 3 -17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 the improvements will have on the local government unit or , watershed management organization. • 3 Subd. 2a. [GROUND WATER PLAN.) "Ground water plan" means a 4 county plan adopted under section 473.8785. 5 Subd. 2b. (GROUND WATER SYSTEM.) "Ground water system" 6 means one of the 14 principal aquifers of the state as def ined 7 by the United States Geological Survey in the Wa ter- Resources 8 Investigations 81 -51, entitled "Designation of Pr incipal Water_ 9 Supply Aquifers in Minnesota" (August 1981), and its revisions. 10 Subd. 3. [LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.] "Local comprehensive 11 plan" has the meaning given it in section 473.852, subdivision 5. 12 Subd. 4. [LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT.) "Local government unit" 13 or "local unit" has the meaning given it in section 473.852. 14 Subd. 5. (MINOR WATERSHED UNITS.) "Minor watershed units" 15 means the drainage areas identified and delineated as such 16 pursuant to Laws 1977, chapter 455, section 33, subdivision 7(a). 17 Subd. 6. [OFFICIAL CONTROLS.] "Official controls" has the 18 meaning given it in section 473.852. • 19 Subd. 7. [WATERSHED.] "Watershed" means a drainage area 20 having boundaries which are substantially coterminous with those 21 of an aggregation of contiguous minor watershed units possessing 22 similar drainage patterns and which cross the borders of two or 23 more local government units. 24 Subd. B. [WATERSHED DISTRICT.) "Watershed district" means 25 a district established under chapter 112. 26 Subd. 9. [WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION.) "Watershed 27 management organization" or "organization" means a watershed 28 district wholly within the metropolitan area or a joint powers 29 entity established wholly or partly within the metropolitan area 30 by special law or by agreement that performs some or all of the r 31 functions of a watershed district for a watershed and that has 32 the characteristics and the authority specified under section 33 473.877. Lake improvement or conservation districts are not 34 watershed management organizations. • 35 473.877 [JOINT POWERS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION.] 36 Subdivision 1. [AUTHORITY.) Any agreement under section 2 y 3 -17 -67 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 - 1 471.59 to jointly or cooperatively manage or plan for the 2 management of surface water in a watershed delineated pursuant 3 to subdivision 2, as required by sections 473.875 to 473.883, 4 may provide, in addition to other provisions authorized by 5 section 471.59, for a joint board having: 6 (a) the authority to prepare, adopt, and implement a plan 7 for the watershed meeting the requirements of section 473.878; 8 (b) the authority to review and approve local water 9 management plans as provided in section 473.879; 10 (c) the authority of a watershed district under chapter 112 11 to regulate the use and development of land in the watershed 12 when one or more of the following conditions exists: (1) the 13 local government unit exercising planning and zoning authority 14 over the land under sections 366.10 to 366.19, 394.21 to 394.37, 15 or 462.351 to 462.364, does not have a local water management 16 plan approved and adopted in accordance with the requirements of 17 section 473.879 or has not adopted the implementation program 18 described in the plan; (2) an application to the local 19 government unit for a permit for the use and development of land 20 requires an amendment to or variance from the adopted local 21 water management plan or implementation program of the local 22 unit; (3) the local government unit has authorized the 23 organization to require permits for the use and development of 24 land; 25 (d) the authority of a watershed district under section 26 112.65 to accept the transfer of drainage systems in the 27 watershed, to repair, improve, and maintain the transferred 28 drainage systems, and to construct all new drainage systems and 29 improvements of existing drainage systems in the watershed, 30 provided that projects may be carried out under the powers 31 granted in chapter 112 or 473 and sections 106A.005 to 106A.811 32 and that proceedings of the board with respect to the systems 33 must be in conformance with the watershed plan adopted under 34 section 473.878; and 35 (e) other powers necessary to exercise the authority under 36 clauses (a) to (c), including the power to enter into contracts 3 i ' 3-17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 for the performance of functions with governmental units or 2 persona. 3 Subd. 2. (REVIEW OF WATERSHED BOUNDARIES.) Before 4 commencing planning under section 473.878, a watershed 5 management organization established pursuant to section 471.59 6 and this section shall submit a map delineating the boundaries 7 of the watershed to the water resources board for review and 8 comment on the conformance of the boundaries with the 9 requirements of sections 473.875 to 473.883. The board shall 10 have 60 days to comment. 11 Subd. 3. (JURISDICTION OVER NONMEMBERS.) A watershed 12 management organization established by agreement pursuant to 13 subdivision 1 may exercise the authority provided,in the 14 agreement throughout the watershed delineated, including 15 territory in statutory and home rule charter cities and towns 16 that are not members of the organization, if the cities and 17 towns that are not members consent to the exercise of authority 18 within their jurisdictions and if the membership of the 19 organization includes: 20 (a) the county or counties having jurisdiction over all of 21 the territory of the watershed that is within the cities and 22 towns that are not members of the organization; and 23 (b) either cities and towns having jurisdiction over at 24 least 50 percent of the land area of the watershed and 25 comprising at least three- quarters of all of the cities and 26 towns having territory in the watershed, or cities and towns 27 having jurisdiction over at least 75 percent of the land area of 28 the watershed. 29 The county or counties identified in clause (a) are responsible 30 for watershed management activities and may exercise authority 31 under sections 473.875 to 473.883 in and for consenting cities 32 and towns that are not members of the organization. 33 473.8771 (WATERSHED DISTRICTS: BOUNDARY CHANGE; 34 TERMINATION.) 35 Subdivision 1. [BOUNDARY CHANGE.) The boundaries of a 36 watershed district wholly within the metropolitan area may be 4 3 -17 -87 (RESDEPT I TT /fa R2824 1 changed pursuant to this subdivision or chapter 112. The 2 governing board of a watershed management organization may 3 petition the water resources board for an order changing the 4 boundaries of a watershed district wholly within the 5 metropolitan area, either by adding new territory to the 6 district or by transferring territory that is within the 7 district to the jurisdiction of another watershed management 8 organization. The petition must: 9 (a) describe with particularity the change in boundary 10 requested, the territory affected, and the reasons for the 11 change; 12 (b) show that the change is consistent with the purposes 13 and requirements of sections 473.875 to 473.883; and 14 (c) identify any property subject to subdivision 3. 15 The petition must be accompanied by a written statement of 16 concurrence in the petition from the governing body of each 17 statutory or home rule charter city and town and each watershed 18 management organization having jurisdiction over the territory 19 proposed to be added or transferred. Upon the filing of a 20 sufficient petition, the water resources board shall give notice 21 of the filing of the petition by publication once each week for 22 two successive weeks in a legal newspaper in each county 23 affected and by mail to the county auditor of each county 24 affected and to the chief official of each statutory or home 25 rule charter city and township affected. The notice must 26 describe the action proposed by the petition and invite written 27 comments on the petition for consideration by the board. The 28 notice must announce that any person who objects to the action 29 proposed in the petition may submit a written request for 30 hearing to the board within 20 days of the last publication of 31 the notice of the filing of the petition and that if no timely 32 request for hearing is received the board will make a decision 33 on the petition pursuant to this subdivision without conducting 34 the public hearing required under chapter 112. If no timely 35 request for hearing is received the board shall make a decision 36 on the petition without a hearing within 30 days after the last 5 3-17 -87 (RESDEPT ] TT /fa R2824 1 publication of the notice. If one or more timely requests for 2 hearing are received the board shall hold a hearing on the 3 petition and shall follow the procedures in chapter 112 4 regarding notice and conduct of hearings. After completing the 5 procedures required by this subdivision, the board shall, by its 6 findings and order, make the boundary change requested if the 7 board determines that: g (a) the governing body of each statutory or home rule 9 charter city and town and each watershed management organization 10 having jurisdiction over the territory proposed to be added or 11 transferred concurs in the petition, 12 (b) the change is consistent with the purposes and 13 requirements of sections 473.875 to 473.883, and 14 (c) the change can be accomplished in conformance with 15 subdivision 3. 16 The board shall file a certified copy of the findings and order 17 with the secretary of state. The order making the change must 18 conform to subdivision 3. The order making the change may amend 19 the order prescribing the distribution of managers of the 20 district. 21 Subd. 2. (TERMINATION.] A watershed district wholly within 22 the metropolitan area may be terminated pursuant to this 23 subdivision or chapter 112. Proceedings for termination under 24 this subdivision must be initiated by a petition to the water 25 resources board filed jointly by the governing bodies of all 26 statutory and home rule charter cities and towns having 27 jurisdiction over territory within the watershed. Upon the 28 filing of a sufficient petition, the board shall hold a hearing 29 in accordance with the procedures prescribed in chapter 112, to 30 take testimony on the determinations required to be made by the 31 board. Following the hearing, the board shall, by its findings 32 and order, terminate the district as requested if the board 33 determines: 34 (a) that the local units of government having jurisdiction j 35 over territory within the watershed have for med a joint powers 36 organization for the watershed pursuant to section 473.877, 6 3 -17-87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 (b) that upon termination of the district the members of 2 the joint powers organization, jointly or severally, are willing • 3 and able to assume ownership of the district's assets and the 4 responsibility for managing and maintaining the district's 5 projects as necessary to accomplish the purposes of sections 6 473.875 to 473.883 and to implement the watershed plan of the 7 joint powers organization to be developed pursuant to section 8 473.878, and 9 1 c that the termination can be accomplished in conformance 10 with subdivision'3r 11 The board shall file a certified copy of the findings and order 12 with the secretary of state. The order terminating the district 13 must transfer the assets of the district to the joint powers 14 organization or its members. The order must conform to 15 subdivision 3. 16 Subd. 3. (LIMITATION.) The addition or transfer of 17 property or termination of a district pursuant to this section 18 must not affect the benefits or damages for any improvement 19 previously constructed by the district having jurisdiction over 20 the P roperty before the board's order. The property affected is 21 and remains liable for its proper share of any outstanding 22 indebtedness of the watershed district applying to the property 23 before the board's order, and levies and assessments for the 24 indebtedness continue in force until the debt is fully paid. In 25 order to satisfy the requirements of this subdivision the board 26 may prescribe conditions on the boundary change or termination 27 or may prescribe a later effective date for the termination of 28 specified powers of a watershed district. 29 473.878 (WATERSHED PLANS.) 30 Subdivision 1. (REQUIREMENT.) A watershed management plan 31 is required for watersheds comprising all minor watershed units 32 within the metropolitan area. For the purposes of this section 33 a minor watershed unit shall be considered within the 34 metropolitan area if more than 90 percent of its area is within 35 the metropolitan area. The watershed management plan shall be 36 prepared, adopted, and implemented in accordance with the 7 3-17-87 (RESDEPT ) TT /La tccoc+ 1 requirements of sections 473.875 to 473.883. 2 Subd. la. (OPTIONAL PARTICIPATION.) Local government 3 units, within or outside of the metropolitan area, having 4 territory that is not subject to the requirements of this 5 section but that is within a watershed part of which is subject 6 to the requirements of this section, may enter into an agreement 7 under section 473.877. A local government unit that enters into 8 an agreement under this subdivision has the duties imposed and 9 the authority granted in sections 473.875 to 473.883. 10 Subd. 2. (RESPONSIBLE UNITS.) Where a watershed management it organization exists, the plan for the watershed shall be 12 prepared and adopted by the organization. If a watershed 13 management organization is not established by July 1, 1985, for 14 any minor watershed unit located wholly outside of Hennepin and 15 Ramsey counties, the county or counties containing the watershed 16 unit shall prepare, adopt and implement the watershed plan and 17 for this purpose the county or counties have the planning, 18 review, permitting, and financing authority of a watershed 19 management organization specified in sections 473.877 to 20 473.883. If a watershed management organization is not 21 established by July 1, 1985, for any minor watershed unit within 22 the metropolitan area and wholly or partly within Hennepin or 23 Ramsey counties, the county or counties containing the watershed 24 unit shall petition for the establishment of a watershed 25 district under chapter 112, provided, however, that a district 26 established pursuant to such a petition shall not cross a 27 primary river nor a river forming the boundary between a 28 metropolitan county and a county outside the metropolitan area, 29 shall have boundaries which are based upon negotiations among 30 all local government units which may have territory within the 31 district and adjacent watersheds and shall not cross county 32 boundaries to include territory whose distinguishing 33 characteristic is multiple drainage points into a primary 34 river. A watershed management organization may request a county 35 to prepare all or part of a plan. A county may delegate the 0 36 preparation of all or part of a plan to the county soil and 8 3-17-87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2024 1 water conservation district. Upon request of a statutory or 2 home rule charter city or town, a county may delegate the 3 preparation of all or part of a plan to the city or town. 4 Subd. 3. (GENERAL STANDARDS.) The watershed management 5 plan shall extend through the year 1990 or any year thereafter 6 which is evenly divisible by five. The plan must be updated 7 before t he expiration of the period covere by the plan. The 8 plan must be revised to be consistent with OPTIONS: conform to; 9 i ncorpor ate) a ground water plan, within one follow the 10 adoption or amendment of the ground water plan. The plan shall 11 contain the elements required by subdivision 4. Each element 12 shall be set out in the degree of detail and prescription 13 necessary to accomplish the purposes of sections 473.875 to 14 473.883, considering the character of existing and anticipated 15 physical and hydrogeologic conditions, land use, and development 16 and the severity of existing and anticipated water management 17 problems in the watershed. The plan shall be prepared and 18 submitted for review under subdivision 5 not later than December 19 31, 1986. Existing plans of a watershed management organization 20 shall remain in force and effect until amended or superseded by 21 plans adopted under sections 473.875 to 473.883. Existing or 22 amended plans of a watershed management organization which meet 23 the requirements of sections 473.875 to 473.883 may be submitted 24 for review under subdivision 5. 25 Subd. 3a. (ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.) Any portion of the 26 metropolitan area that is not in a watershed management y y 27 organization b Jul 1, 1985, as required by subdivision 2, has 28 until July 1, 1986, to form an organization. Notwithstanding 29 the requirements of subdivision 3, a watershed management 30 organization formed under this subdivision has until December 31 31, 1987, to prepare and submit a plan for review. 32 Subd. 4. (CONTENTS.) The plan shall: 33 (a) describe the existing physical environment, land use, 34 and development in the area and the environment, land use, and 35 development proposed in existing local and metropolitan 36 comprehensive plans; 9 3-17-87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa xzesa 1 (b) present information on the hydrologic system and its 2 components, including any drainage systems previously 3 constructed under sections 106A.005 to 106A.811, and existing 4 and potential problems related thereto; 5 (c) state objectives and policies, including management 6 principles, alternatives and modifications, water quality, and 7 protection of natural characteristics; 8 (d) set forth a management plan, including the hydrologic 9 and water quality conditions that will be sought and significant 10 opportunities for improvement; 11 (e) describe the effect of the plan on existing drainage 12 systems; 13 (f) describe conflicts between the watershed plan and 14 existing plans of local government units; 15 (g) set forth an implementation program consistent with the 16 management plan, which includes a capital improvement program 17 and standards and schedules for amending the comprehensive plans 18 and official controls of local government units in the watershed 19 to bring about conformance with the watershed plan; and 20 (h) set out a procedure for amending the plan. 21 Subd. 5. [ LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT Upon completion of 22 the plan but before final adoption by the organization, the 23 organization shall submit the plan for review and comment to all 24 counties, soil and water conservation districts, towns, and 25 statutory and home rule charter cities having territory within 26 the watershed. Any local government unit which expects that 27 substantial amendment of its local comprehensive plan will be 28 necessary in order to bring local water management into 29 conformance with the watershed plan shall describe as 30 specifically as possible, within its comments, the amendments to 31 the local plan which it expects will be necessary. 32 Subd. 5a. [COUNTY REVIEW; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; 33 GROUND WATER PLAN.) (a) Sixty days after the submission to local 34 government units for comment, the organization shall submit the 35 plan, any comments received, and any appropriate amendments to 36 the plan, to the board of the county or counties having 10 3-17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 territory within the watershed. 2 u The county shall approve or disapprove projects in the: 3 capital improvement program which may require the provision of 4 county funds pursuant to section 112.60, subdivision 2, or 5 473.883. If th count has a ground water plan, the count shall 6 (c) 7 re v i ew the watershed plan for consist w ith (OPTION 8 c onformity to the county around water pl an. The co unty may 9 di s a pprove of the watershed plan, or part thereof. for 10 inconsistency with the around water plan. (OPTION 1)1: The 11 county may disapprove the watershed lan, or art thereof, for 12 lack of conformity to the count round water plan. OPTION 42: 13 The county may disapprove the watershe plan, o r part thereof, 14 only for s ubstantial adverse effect on o substant departure 15 from the ground water plan OPTION # 3: The co unty shall 16 comment on the conformity of the wate rshed pl an to the groun 17 water p lan.] If the county disappro all o r part of the 18 watershed plan, the watershed lan must be submitted for review 19 under subdivision 6 and review and final decision under 20 subdivision 7. The county may delegate its review under this 21 paragraph to a soil and water conservation district. 22 (d) The county shall have 60 days to complete its review of 23 t p he -en ital- improvement- pragrom. If the county fails to 24 complete its review within the prescribed period, unless an the eed to b 2 5 extension is agreed Y organization the Rlan and program 26 shall be deemed approved. 27 (e) If the watershed extends into more than one county and 28 one or more counties disapprove of all or part of a capital 29 improvement plan or program while the other county or counties 30 approve, the plan and program shall be submitted to- the -water 31 resources -board for review parseant -ta under subdivision 6 and 32 review and final decision under subdivision 7. 33 Subd. 6. [REVIEW BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.) After 34 completion of the review under subdivision 5, the plan and all 35 comments received shall be submitted to the metropolitan council 36 for review. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in 11 3 -17-87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa K'699 - 1 sections 112.46 and 473.165, the council shall review the plan 2 in the-same manner and with the same authority and effect as 3 provided for the council's review of the comprehensive plans of 4 local government units under section 473.175. The council shall 5 comment on the apparent conformity with metropolitan system 6 plans of any anticipated amendments to local comprehensive 7 plans. The council may mediate and attempt to re solve 8 differenc among local governmental agenc regardin the plan. - 9 Subd. 7. (REVIEW BY STATE AGENCIES.) J�J After completion 10 of the review under, subdivision 6, the plan and all comments 11 received shall be submitted to the commissioner commissioners of 12 natural resources and health and the director of the pollution 13 control agency for review and comment on the consistency of the 14 plan with state laws and rules relating to water and related 15 land resources, and to the water resources board for review 16 under section 112.46. 17 (b) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, the 18 water resources board shall review the plan as provided in 19 section 112.46. The board shall review the plan for conformance 20 with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections 473.875 to 21 473.883. The board shall not prescribe a plan, but may 22 disapprove all or parts of a plan which it determines is not in 23 conformance with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections 24 473.875 to 473.883. 25 (c) If the plan or part of the plan i disappro by a 26 county under subdivision 5, paragraph (c), the board shall make 27 a final decision on the issue. If the plan or capital 28 improvement program is the subject of a dispute between counties 29 under subdivision 5, paragrap (e), the water resourcesfinal 30 decision on the issue. The decision - shall -be decisions of the 31 board under this paragraph are binding on the organization and 32 the counties involved. 33 Subd. 8. (ADOPTION; IMPLEMENTATION.) The organization 34 shall adopt and implement its plan within 120 days after 35 compliance with the provisions of subdivision 7 and approval of 36 the plan by the water resources board. A watershed district may 12 3 -17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 implement its approved plan and approved capital improvement 2 program by resolution of the majority of the board of managers 3 and without respect to the provisions of chapter 112 requiring 4 the managers to wait upon petitions for projects, to submit 5 projects for review by the water resources board, and to limit 6 the cost and purposes of projects. 7 Subd. 9. [AMENDMENTS.) To the extent and in the manner 8 required by the adopted plan, all amendments to the adopted plan 9 shall be submitted to the towns, cities, county, and other 10 agencies for revieyi in accordance with the provisions of 11 subdivisions 5, 6, and 7. Amendments necessary to rec ognize a 12 county ground water plan, as required by sub divisio n 3, must be 13 submitted for review in accordance with subdivisions 5, 5a, 6, 14 and 7. 15 {473.8785) (GROUND WATER PLANS.) 16 Subdivision 1. (AUTHORITY.) Metropolitan counties may 17 prepare and adopt ground water plans in acc ordance with this 18 section. 19 Subd. 2. [RESPONSIBLE UNITS.) The county may prepare and 20 adopt the plan or, upon request of a soil and water conservation 21 district, the county may delegate to the soil and water 22 co nservation district the preparation and a doption of all or 23 part of a plan and other county responsibilit regarding the 24 plan under this section and section 473.873. 25 Subd. 3. [LOCAL COORDINATION.) To assure the coordination 26 of efforts of all units of government during the preparation and 27 imple mentation of watershed and ground water plans, the county 28 s hall conduct meetings with local units of g overnment and 29 watershed management organizations, an may enter into 30 a_ reements with local units of governme and wat ershed 31 management organizations establishing the responsibilit 32 dur ing the preparation and implementation o the water plans. 33 Subd. 4. (ADVISORY COMMITTEE.) To assist in the 34 d of the ground water plan, the cou shall se ek the 35 ad vice of the Minnesota geological survey, t he departme of 36 hea lth and natural resources, the ollution c ontrol agenc and P 13 3 -17 - 87 (RESDEBT ) TT /fa R2824 1 o ther appropriate local, state, and federal age and shall 2 name an advisory committee of at least seven but not more than 3 1 1 members The committee must include representatives of 4 various interests like residential and nonresidential 5 construction, agriculture, hydrogeologye and well drilling. At 6 le ast two members of the committee must be fr the public at 7 l with no direct pecuniary interest in a ny project involving 8 ground water Protection and at least two members must be from 9 _local units of government. 10 Subd. 5. (GENERAL STANDARDS.) The ground water plan must 11 extend through the year 1995 or any year the reafte r which is 12 evenly divisible by five The plan must cont the elements 13 required by subdivision 6. Each element must be set out in the 14 deg of detail and prescription necessary t accomplish the 15 p urposes of sections 473.875 to 473 883, co nsidering the 16 charac of existing and anticipated physical and hydrogeologic 17 c onditions, land use, and development and the severity of 18 e xisting and anticipated water managements in the 19 watershed. 20 Subd. 6. [CONTENTS.) A ground water plan must: 21 (1) cover the entire area within th county; 22 (2) des cribe existing and expected changes to th physical 23 environment, land use, and development in th county; 24 (3) summarize available information about the ground wa ter 25 and related resources in the county, including existing and 26 potential distribution, availability, qual and use; 27 (4) state the goals, objectives, scope, and p of 28 ground water protection in the county; 29 5 contain standards, criteria, and g uidelines for the 30 protect of ground water from pollution and for various types 31 of land uses in environmentally sensitive area critical areas, 32 or previously contaminated areas; 33 (6) describe relationships and possible conflicts between 34 the ground water plan and the plans of ot her count local 35 government units, and watershed management organizations in the 36 affected ground water system; 14 3 -17 -87 (RESDEPT -) TT /fa R2824 1 (7) set forth standards and guidelines for i 2 of the plan - by watershed management organizations and local 3 units of government; and 4 ( 8) include a procedure for amending the g r o und water plan. 5 Subd. 7. (LOCAL REVIEW AND COMMENT.) Upon completion of 6 the ground water plan but before final adoption b the county, 7 the county shall submit the plan for review and com ment to each _ 8 soil and water conservation district town, statutor and home. 9 rule charter city, and watershed mana ement or anization Navin 10 territory within tl)e county. The county also shall sub mit the 11 pla to any other county or watershed managemen organization or 12 district in the affected ground water system that could affect 13 or be affected by implementation of the plan. Any political 14 su bdivision or watershed management organizati that expects 15 that sustantial amendment of its plans would be necessary in 16 order to bring them into conformance with the county ground 17 water plan shall describe as specifically as poss ible, within 18 its comments, the amendments that it expects would be necessary. 19 Reviewing entities have sixty days to re view and co mment. 20 Subd. 8. (REVIEW BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL.) After 21 co mpletion of the review under subdivision 7, the plan and all 22 co mments received must be submitted to the me tropolitan council 23 for review. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in 24 s ections 112.46 and 473 165, the council sha review the plan 25 in the same manner and with the same autho and ef fect as 26 provided for the council's review of the comprehensive plans of 27 local government units under section 473.175. The council shall 28 c omment on the apparent conformity with me tropolitan system 29 p lans of any anticipated amendments to water plans and local 30 co mprehensive plans The council may med iate and attempt to 31 res olve differences among local governmental agencies regarding 32 the plan. 33 Subd. 9. (REVIEW BY STATE AGENCIES.) After completion of 34 the review under subdivision 8, the plan and all comments 35 received must be submitted to the commissioners of natural 36 resources and health and the director of the pollutio control 15 3 -17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 _ 1 agency for review and comment on the consiste of the plan 2 with state laws and rules relating to water and related land 3 resources and to the water resources board for review under 4 section 112.46. Except as otherwise provi in this 5 subdivision, the water resources board shall re the plan as 6 provided in section 112.46. The board shall review the lan for 7 conformance with the requirements of chapter 112 and sections _ 8 473 .875 to 473.883. The board may not prescribe a plan, but may 9 disapprove all or parts of a plan which it de termines is not in 10 conformance with 'the requirements of chapter 112 and s ections 11 473.875 to 473.883. 12 Subd. 10. [ADOPTION; IMPLEMENTATION.) The county shall 13 ado and implement its ground water plan within 120 days after 14 com pliance with the provisions of subdivision 9 and approval of 15 the plan by the water resources board. 16 Subd. 11. (AMENDMENTS.) To the extent and in the manner 17 requ ired by the adopted plan, all amendments to the ad opted plan 18 must be submitted to the towns, cities, county, and other 19 agencies for review in accordance with the p rovisions of 20 subdivisions 7 to 9. 21 473.879 [LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS.) 22 Subdivision 1. [REQUIREMENT.) After the watershed plan is 23 approved and adopted, or amended, pursuant to section 473.878, 24 the local government units having land use planning and 25 regulatory responsibility for territory within the watershed 26 shall prepare or cause to be prepared a local water management 27 plan, capital improvement program, and official controls as 28 necessary to bring local water management into conformance with 29 the watershed plan within the time period prescribed in the r 30 implementation program of the watershed plan and, as necessary, 31 shall prepare or cause to be prepared amendments to the local 32 comprehensive plan. Each town within the counties of Anoka, 33 Carver, Dakota, Scott, and Washington authorized by general or 34 special law to plan and regulate the use of land under sections 35 462.351 to 462.364 shall by resolution determine whether to 36 prepare the local water management plan itself or to delegate 16 3 -17-87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 all or part of the preparation of the plan to the county. Towns 2 within counties which have adopted comprehensive plans • 3 applicable to the town shall use county preparation of their 4 plan to the maximum extent possible. 5 Subd. 2. [STANDARDS; CONTENTS.) Each local plan, in the 6 degree of detail required in the watershed plan, shall: 7 (a) Describe existing and proposed physical environment and _ 8 land use; 9 (b) Define drainage areas and the volumes, rates, and paths 10 of stormwater runoff -f; 11 (c) Identify areas and elevations for stormwater storage 12 adequate to meet performance standards established in the 13 watershed plan; 14 (d) Define water quality and water quality protection 15 methods adequate to performance standards established in the 16 watershed plan; 17 (e) Identify regulated areas; and 18 (f) Set forth an implementation program, including a 19 description of official controls and, as appropriate, a capital 20 improvement program. 21 Subd. 3. (REVIEW.) After consideration but before adoption 22 by the governing body, each local unit shall submit its water 23 management plan to the watershed management organization for 24 review for consistency with the watershed plan adopted pursuant 25 to section 473.878. The organization shall approve or 26 disapprove the local plan or parts thereof. The organization 27 shall have 60 days to complete its review. If the organization 28 fails to complete its review within the prescribed period, 29 unless an extension is agreed to by the local unit the local 30 plan shall be deemed approved. 31 Subd. 4. (ADOPTION; IMPLEMENTATION.) After approval of the 32 local plan by the organization, the local government unit shall 33 adopt and implement its plan within 120 days and shall amend its 34 official controls accordingly within 180 days. 35 Subd. 5. [AMENDMENTS.) To the extent and in the manner 36 required by the organization, all amendments to local water 17 3_17_87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 management plans shall be submitted to the organization for 2 review and approval in accordance with the provisions of 3 subdivision 3 for the review of plans. 4 473.881 (EXEMPTION FROM LEVY LIMIT.) 5 Any levy to pay the increased costs to a local government 6 unit or watershed management organization of implementing 7 sections 473.878 and 473.879 or to pay costs of improvements and 8 maintenance of improvements identified in an approved and 9 adopted plan shall be in addition to any other taxes authorized 10 by law and shall be disregarded in the calculation of limits on 11 taxes imposed by chapter 275, except levies pursuant to section 12 473.883, subdivision 7, for taxes payable in 1985 and thereafter. 13 Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in chapter 112, a 14 watershed district may levy a tax sufficient to pay the 15 increased costs to the district of implementing sections 473.878 16 and 473.879. The proceeds of any tax levied under this section 17 shall be deposited in a separate fund and expended only for the 18 purposes authorized by this section. 19 473.882 (SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT.) 20 Subdivision 1. (WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TAX DISTRICT.] Any 21 local government unit planning for water management under 22 sections 473.878 and 473.879 may establish a watershed 23 management tax district in the territory within the watershed, 24 for the purpose of paying the costs of the planning required 25 under sections 473.878 and 473.879. Any local government unit 26 which has part of its territory within a watershed for which a 27 plan has been adopted in accordance with section 473.878 and 28 which has a local water management plan adopted in accordance 29 with section 473.879 may establish a watershed management tax 30 district in the territory within the watershed or a minor 31 watershed unit in the watershed, for the purpose of paying 32 capital costs of the water management facilities described in 33 the capital improvement program of the plans and for the purpose 34 of paying for normal and routine maintenance of the facilities. 35 A county or counties required by section 473.878, subdivision 2, 36 to prepare, adopt, and implement a watershed plan shall 18 3-17-87 IRESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 apportion the costs of planning, capital improvements, and 2 maintenance proportionate to benefits. The county may apportion 3 the costs among the minor watershed units in the watershed, or 4 among the statutory and home rule charter cities and towns 5 having territory in the watershed, and for this purpose may 6 establish more than one watershed management tax district in the 7 watershed. g Subd. 2. [PROCEDURE.] The district shall be established by 9 ordinance adopted after a hearing. Notice of the time, place, 10 and purpose of the.hearing shall be published for two successive 11 weeks in the official newspaper of the local government unit, 12 ending at least seven days before the day of the hearing. The 13 ordinance shall describe with particularity the territory or 14 area to be included in the district. After adoption, the 15 ordinance shall be filed with the county auditor and county 16 recorder. The district may be dissolved by following the 17 procedures prescribed for the establishment of the district. 18 Subd. 3. [TAX.] After adoption of the ordinance under 19 subdivision 2, a local government unit may annually levy a tax 20 on all taxable property in the district for the purposes for 21 which the tax district is established. The tax levied may not 22 exceed one mill on property located in rural towns other than 23 urban towns, unless allowed by resolution of the town electors. 24 The proceeds of the tax shall be paid into a fund reserved for 25 these purposes. Any proceeds remaining in the reserve fund at 26 the time the tax is terminated or the district is dissolved 27 shall be transferred and irrevocably pledged to the debt service 28 fund of the local unit to be used solely to reduce tax levies 29 for bonded indebtedness of taxable property in the district. A 30 tax levied in accordance with this subdivision for paying 31 capital costs is a levy for the payment of principal and 32 interest on bonded indebtedness within the meaning of section 33 275.50, subdivision 5, clause (e). 34 Subd. 4. [BONDS.) After adoption of the ordinance under 35 subdivision 2, and after a contract for the construction of all 36 or part of an improvement has been entered into or the work has 19 3-17 -87 [RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 been ordered done by day labor, the local government unit may 2 issue obligations in the amount it deems necessary to pay in 3 whole or in part the capital cost incurred and estimated to be 4 incurred in making the improvement. The obligations shall be 5 payable out of the proceeds of the tax levied pursuant to 6 subdivision 3. The local unit may by resolution of its 7 governing body adopted prior to the sale of obligations; pledge _ 8 the full faith, credit and taxing power of the local unit to 9 assure payment of the principal and interest in the event the 10 proceeds of the tax, levy in the district are insufficient to pay 11 principal and interest. The amount of any taxes which are 12 required to be levied outside of the territory of the tax 13 district or taken from the general funds of the local unit to 14 pay principal and interest on the obligations shall be 15 reimbursed to the local unit from taxes levied within the 16 territory of the tax district. Obligations shall be issued in 17 accordance with chapter 475, except that an election is not 18 required and the amount of any obligations shall not be included 19 in determining the net indebtedness dness of the local unit under the 20 provisions of any law or charter limiting indebtedness. 21 473.883 [WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION; CAPITAL 22 IMPROVEMENTS; PAYMENT BY COUNTY.] 23 Subdivision 1. [GENERAL AUTHORITY.) The authority provided 24 to watershed districts in this section is in addition to the 25 authority provided in chapter 112. A watershed management 26 organization which has adopted a watershed plan in accordance 27 with section 473.878 may certify for payment by the county as 28 provided in this section all or any part of the cost of a 29 capital improvement contained in the capital improvement program 30 of the plan. 31 Subd. 2. [PROCEDURE.] A copy of the plan for the 32 improvement shall be forwarded to the county board. The 33 organization shall then hold a public hearing on the proposed 34 improvement, following publication once each week for two 35 successive weeks before the date of the hearing in a legal 36 newspaper published in the county or counties in which a part or 20 3-17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 all of the affected waters and lands are located. The last 2 publication shall occur not more than 30 days nor less than ten 3 days before the hearing. The notice shall state the time and 4 place of hearing, the general nature of the proposed 5 improvement, the estimated cost, and the method by which the 6 cost of the improvement is to be paid, including the cost to be 7 allocated to each county or minor watershed unit under 8 subdivision 3. The cost must be apportioned according to the 9 benefits received by property in the county. Not less than ten to days before the he4ting, notice by mail shall be given to the 11 counties and to each home rule charter or statutory city or town 12 located wholly or partly within the territory of the watershed 13 management organization. Failure to give mailed notice or 14 defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. At 15 the time and place specified in the notice the organization 16 shall hear all parties interested in the proposed improvement. 17 If upon full hearing the organization finds that the improvement 18 will be conducive to public health and promote the general 19 welfare, and is in compliance with sections 473.875 to 473.883 20 and the plan adopted pursuant to section 473.878, it shall make 21 findings accordingly, determine the cost of the improvement, and 22 certify the cost to the county or counties for payment. 23 Subd. 3. (APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS.) If the territory of the 24 watershed management organization extends into more than one 25 county, the cost of the improvement shall be certified to the 26 respective county boards in the proportions prescribed in the 27 capital improvement program of the organization. The 28 certification of the watershed management organization may 29 apportion the cost among some or all of the minor watershed 30 units in the watershed and for this purpose may require the 31 establishment of more than one tax district in the watershed. 32 Subd. 4. (COUNTY PAYMENT.) Each county receiving a 33 certification for payment from a watershed management 34 organization pursuant to this section shall provide funds to 35 meet its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement as 36 shown in the certification by the organization. 21 3 -17 -87 (RESDEPT ) TT /fa R2824 1 1 Subd. 5. [BONDS.) in order to make the payment required by 2 subdivision 4, the county board of each county may issue general 3 obligation bonds of the county in the amount necessary to pay 4 all or part of the cost of improvements certified to the county 5 board or to refund general obligation bonds issued for this 6 purpose. The bonds shall be sold, issued, and secured in 7 accordance with the provisions of chapter 475 for general - 8 obligation bonds, except as otherwise provided in this 9 subdivision. No election shall be required. 10 Subd. 6. [TAX,) For the payment of principal and interest 11 on the bonds issued under subdivision 5 and the payment required 12 under subdivision 4, the county shall irrevocably pledge and 13 appropriate the proceeds of an ad valorem tax levied on all 14 taxable property located within the territory of the watershed 15 management organization or minor watershed unit for which the 16 bonds are issued. Each year until the reserve for payment of 17 the bonds is sufficient to retire the bonds, the county shall IS levy on all taxable property in the territory of the 19 organization or unit, without respect to any statutory or other ZO limitation on taxes, an amount of taxes sufficient to pay 21 principal and interest on the bonds and to restore any 22 deficiencies in reserves required to be maintained for payment 23 of the bonds. The tax levied on rural towns other than urban 24 towns may not exceed one mill, unless approved by resolution of 25 the town electors. If at any time the amounts available from 26 the levy on property in the territory of the organization are 27 insufficient to pay principal and interest on the bonds when 28 due, the county shall make payment from any available funds in 29 the county treasury. The amount of any taxes which are required 30 to be levied outside of the territory of the watershed 31 management organization or unit or taken from the general funds 32 of the county to pay principal or interest on the bonds shall be 33 reimbursed to the county from taxes levied within the territory 34 of the watershed management organization or unit. 35 Subd. 7. (MAINTENANCE LEVY.) For the purpose of creating a 36 maintenance fund to be used for normal and routine maintenance 22 3-17-87 (RESDEPT I TT /fa R2824 �a 1 of a work of improvement constructed in whole or part with money 2 provided by the county pursuant to subdivision 4, the board of 3 managers of a watershed district, with the approval of the 4 county, may impose an ad valorem levy on all property located 5 within the territory of the watershed district or minor 6 watershed unit. The levy shall be certified, levied, collected, 7 and distributed as provided in section 112.611, and shall be in 8 addition to any other money levied and distributed to the 9 district thereunder. The proceeds of the levy shall be 10 deposited in a separate maintenance and repair account to be 11 used only for the purpose for which the levy was made. 23 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR A METROPOLITAN GROUND WATER STUDY AND PLAN WHEREAS, the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District has previously had two bills drafted and introduced in the 1987 Minnesota Legislature; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission has studied and reviewed the early legislation relating to erosion and sediment control and ground water and has taken a strong position in Opposition to the bills as drafted and introduced in the Legislature; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission is now advised that the original legislation has been withdrawn or at least the authors, Senator Tad Jude and Representative Darby Nelson, have indicated that they will revise House File 373 and will not be pursuing House File 360 and have proposed to make extensive changes in House File 373 which in effect allows but does not require metropolitan area ground water plans; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission has just been presented with the draft of the proposed revision as obtained at a meeting on March 17, 1987, with the authors being Senator Tad Jude and Representative Darby Nelson, and the individual Commissioners and their member cities have not had an opportunity to review the proposed legislation; and WHEREAS, the individual member cities of the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, and other agencies including water management organizations and watersheds all have strenuous regulations concerning water quantity and the underground water supply; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission and each of its individual members is firmly committed to improving water quantity, controlling pollution, and promoting ound water recharge ar g g g by putting waters back into the soil which are as free of pollution as possible and commend the authors of the proposed legislation and others interested in clean water; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water ter Mana ement Commission mmission strongly believes that if it is deemed necessary to enact additional legislation as it relates to ground water or water quantity, that the water management organizations, watersheds, cities, and consulting engineers and other technical experts all have expertise which could aid and assist the Legislature in drafting and adopting a well thought out piece of legislation which would be beneficial to all the I RESOLUTION NO. residents of the metropolitan p area who now reside therein as well as to future generations; and WHEREAS, the incorporation of a ground water bill into the surface water management act may confuse both the process and the existing legislation and to rush into such legislation at this time on the premise that it will be included in the original plans is not consistent with the existing statutes or the water management plan preparation process; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission does believe there is no way that a ground water plan per se could be included in the plan without delaying the process for several years, and therefore any effort to rush such a requirement into the law will only confuse the existing planning process which is taking place throughout the seven county metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission mmission desires to aid and assist the Minnesota Legislature, the County of Hennepin, the Hennepin County Soil and Water Conservation District, and all others who are interested in preserving, protecting, and improving the ground water quantity and supply. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The authors of the proposed ground water management program are commended for their concern in protecting the areas aquifiers, supplying water to residents of Minnesota and /or other states which might draw water from the soil which is a part of the recharging process within this state's boundaries. 2. We sincerely believe that the watershed districts, water management organizations, cities, counties, and other persons having expertise in the field of water, including consultants hired by all of these agencies, have a great deal of experience, both technical and practical, to offer to the legislators and to others drafting legislation or promoting laws to improve and protect the ground water quantity and quality. We believe that the legislators would be well advised to seek the consultation of the Commission and others who have worked in the field of water for a long period of time, and the Commission has offered their complete and total cooperation to Senator Jude and Representative Nelson and /or other legislators working on drafting legislation in this field. 3. We hereby request that each legislator representing areas within the Shingle Creek Water Management a RESOLUTION NO. Commission boundaries use their best efforts to delay legislation in this field until the Commission and other watersheds and water management organizations, along with their member cities, have an opportunity to study the proposed legislation. The enactment of legislation which mandates the expenditure of public funds by the Commission and /or member municipalities should be well thought out, and there is no emergency situation that the legislation is designed to correct. There are already a large number of agencies working in the field to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, and any additional studies and /or reports or requirements should be designed to avoid duplication and waste of public funds. We further believe that if any legislation is to go forward at this time, it should relate basically to to the collection of data which will eventually be necessary to promulgate a ground water plan. We do encourage all agencies working in this field to continue to prepare and collect data, and we urge them to cooperate with any central agency collecting such data for review and study. 4. We hereby recommend to our legislators that any legislation or action be delayed until a task force has been created and has studied the subject. We recommend that persons appointed to such advisory board or task force be selected from cities, water management organizations, consulting engineers, and others who are working daily to manage and improve water quantity and water quality, both on the surface and underground. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. _ ® V association of B U L L E T I N metropolitan municipalities March 13, 1987 TO: AMM Member Cities (Hennepin County) r FROM: Fn Peterson RE: SF353 -HF373 Ground Water Protection Bill ? -HF360 Local Erosion and Sediment Control Bill PLEASE NOTE: The above two bills are sponsored by the Hennepin County Conservation District and apply only to local units of government in Hennepin County. These bills have significant impacts on cities and would give the Hennepin County Conservation District some approval authority over local plans and ordinances. Please look at the bills carefully as they contain mandates, intrude into local control, and have cost impacts for which no funding is provided. ACTION: If you have concerns contact your local Legislators very quickly. Representative Darby Nelson of Champlin is the Chief House Author of both bills and Senator Tad Jude of Maple Grove is the Chief Senate Author of SF353- As of this date (March 13), the Senate Companion to HF360 has not been introduced. For your information, SF353 and HF373 are both scheduled to be heard next week. SF353 is tentatively scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, March 18th. at 12:00 noon in Room 112 of the Capital in a subcommittee of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and HF373 is scheduled to be heard on Thursda March 19th. at 12:_00 noon in Room 200 of the State Office Building (SOB) in the Local and Urban Affairs Committee. YOUR CONCERNS, IF ANY, SHOULD ALSO BE EXPRESSED AT THESE HEARINGS _- (over) 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnkota 55101 (612)227 -5600 BACKGROUND; Since these bills only have an impact in Hennepin County, the AMM Staff will not be able to spend much time on these bills. However, the AMM Board at its meeting on March 12, 1987 voted to oppose bills (HF373- SF353) and (HF360- ?) as introduced because of their potential negative impacts on cities and the unfunded mandates. I have had several meetings with the authors and Legislative support staff to inform them of our concerns and a major "strike everything" amendment is being prepared for next weeks hearings. I think the amendment will be an improvement over the original bill but it will probably not satisfy the major conce Please call me should you have questions. Distribution note: This Bulletin has been mailed to Mayors and Managers /Administrators of all AMM member cities in Hennepin County. i, -2- SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION 3030 Harbor Lane • Plymouth, MN 55441 (612) 553 -1144 March 16, 1987 Gerald Splinter Manager, City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District Special Legislation Dear Sir: The Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District, also known as the Hennepin Conservation District, recently had two bills drafted and introduced into the Minnesota legislature. These bills relate to local erosion and sediment control and local ground water protection in Hennepin County. t p y The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Water Management Commissions met and unanimously objected to this special legislation for the reasons set forth in a rather long and detailed resolution. We are enclosing herewith copies of the resolution as unanimously adopted by both commissions on March 12, 1987. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Darby Nelson in the House of Representatives and Sena Tad Jude in the Senate. Up to this point, we have not had conversations with these gentlemen, but we intend to do this in the very near future. We recommend that the enclosed resolutions be revised to make them applicable to your particular city, and hope that you will adopt the resolutions and see that your opposition is directed to your Senator and Representatives. I believe the resolutions are self - explanatory. Basically, we object that this is special legislation for Hennepin County only and, if the legislation is needed at all, it should apply at the very least to the entire metropolitan area; we believe it should apply statewide. Of course, it is our belief that such a broad scope and such a broad di- rective will not fly either on a metropolitan or statewide basis. We believe this legislation is unnecessary since the Legislature has already directed that water management organizations be created and that the water management commissions then are directed to prepare a March 16, 1987 watershed plan. The Surface Water Management Act requires that the watershed plans include provisions and controls for water quality to prevent erosion and to promote ground water recharge. We, therefore, believe that the majority of the direction contained in the soil con - servation bills is a duplication of directives contained in the Sur- face Water Management Act. We are currently in the process of completing our Watershed Plans and these will contain controls and other materials which relate to soil erosion, water quality, and underground water recharging pro- visions. In addition our city must y y prepare local plans for each of the water - sheds in which you have territory. These plans must be sent to the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District for comments. It is our belief that if there are deficiencies in the water management plans being created throughout the entire metropolitan area, the water and soil people should give their input and such input be re- quired to be in all the metropolitan plans. As it relates to under- ground water and the recharging of the aquafers, we would point out that the underground water supply crosses county borders and, in fact, probably most of the water that is being extracted from the ground in the metropolitan area goes into the soil around St. Cloud or possibly even north of that area. We would ask that you submit this to your City Council for their consideration. Hopefully, each community in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Water Management areas will adopt this resolution, revised only to put in your city's name and adding whatever additional provisions your municipality feels are applicable in your particular situation. We think this legislation is a duplication of existing programs, is not cost- efficient, and is not beneficial to the cities or to the water management organizations. The Commissions have recommended that each of their member cities contact their senators and representatives by telephone to indicate their opposition so the legislators can proceed knowing our position. We respectfully request your consideration in this and your immediate attention to it. We have been advised that these bills are starting to go through the hearing process and, therefore, we ask that you act on them as promptly as possible. Respectfully submitted, 6 A Johnson /6, Chairman NJ:mlh cc: City Clerk Sy Knapp RES. 87-2 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO TWO BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND GROUND WATER WHEREAS, the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District (HSWCD) also called the Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) has two bills introduced in the 1987 Minnesota Legislature, and WHEREAS, the HCD has sent to the various cities in Hennepin County a summary of both Bills and the Bills relate to a "Local Erosion and Sediment Control Bill for Hennepin County" and a "Local Ground Water Protection Bill for Hennepin County ", and WHEREAS, a review of these two bills indicate that the Bills and Controls contained therein relate only to Hennepin County and not to the rest of the Metropolitan area or the balance of the State of .Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has previously adopted many laws which relate to erosion and sediment problems and the underground water supply and the responsibilities for these general subjects rest with numerous state agencies, counties, special districts and municipal corporations, and WHEREAS, in 1982 the Minnesota Legislature adopted Chapter 509 [Codified as Minnesota Statutes 473.875 to 473.8831 which is known as the "Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act" and said legislation _. requires that all watersheds within the seven county metropolitan area are required to prepare watershed management plans and within said area there are 46 separate watersheds, and ' WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act has the purpose of preventing flooding and erosion from surface flows, improving water quality and promoting ground water recharge and alf of said purposes relate to erosion and sediment control and the underground water supply and further requires that all watershed plans must be presented to soil and water conservation districts for their comments, and WHEREAS, the effect of the Bills presented by HCD are limited to Hennepin County and further are limited in that the State, the County, the City of Minneapolis, first ring suburbs [not defined] and agriculture activities are all exempt from HCD controls or permit requirements, and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation expands the powers of one soil and water conservation district in the state and requires controls in parts of one county and requires inspections and monitoring in certain areas for "all situations encountered during the period that land grading begins and landscaping is completed on a construction site, " and does not indicate where the persons retained to make the inspections or to carry on monitoring activities will get their funds, and WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Water Management Organization has studied the summaries presented by the BCD and does not believe that this proposed legislation is necessary or should be approved for the following reasons: A. Any bill relating to erosion and sediment controls should be general legislation or at the very least should apply to all seven counties in the Metropolitan area. B. Groundwater travels underground and there is no rationale basis to control these activities on a county by county basis. It is asserted by many experts that the waters pumped from underground wells in the metropolitan area enters the ground at St. Cloud or further north of that area. C. The HCD and all soil and water conservation districts in the metropolitan area are directly involved in establishing watershed management plans under Chapter 509 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.878 requires that all plans be submitted to soil and water conservation districts. If the BCD has a master plan or has specific recommendations relating to erosion and sediment controls, water quality or ground water recharging it can comment and request the WMO, the County, the Metropolitan Council, the DNR, the PCA and the Water Resources Board to include these recommendations in all plans not just in the 12 Watersheds in Hennepin County. Why exclude the 34 Watersheds outside Hennepin County covered by Chapter 509? D. The exemptions included in the Bills for Agriculture, State, County, first ring suburbs and the City of Minneapolis removes the proposed controls from the most densely populated areas and from the areas [agriculture] creating the biggest problems-- nonpoint sources of pollution. E. Requiring inspections of all land disturbing activities in Hennepin County, outside of exempt areas, creates unknown cost problems for some cities and or watersheds. How many people would be required for these inspections? Is this a duplication of activities already being regulated by cities and WMO's In the case of Shingle Creek Watershed we are already very concerned by erosion and sediment control problems and our member cities are required to include controls and safe guards in permits being issued. All permit requests being considered under existing regulations are designed to improve water quality and to enhance ground water recharging. F. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission does agree that erosion and sediment controls are necessary and should be included in all watershed management plans being submitted to the Minnesota Water Resources Board. This Commission does believe there is a sufficient amount of legislation covering the subject and that enough governmental bodies are currently involved in establishing and regulating the subjects and that the proposed legislation would be a duplication and is not cost efficient. G. If the proposed legislation is adopted it should apply statewide or at the very least over the entire metropolitan area. H. Duties assigned to cities and WMO's must be funded. The proposed legislation requires some WMO's and some cities to incurr additional costs by hiring people to develop and design local plans and this is unnecessary because all soil and water conservation districts can comment and suggest controls or proposed regulations in the WMO planning process. If this legislation is adopted the state should provide these limited areas with sufficient monies to cover their costs. NOW WHEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SHINGLE CREEK WATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION: 1. We are hereby opposed to the legislation introduced and sponsored by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District as special legislation applying only to parts of Hennepin County. 2. For the reasons stated in the Whereas provisions of this resolution we request our legislators to vote in Opposition to the legislation. We agree that the f areas of concern are important and we sincerely believe that there is sufficient current legislation on the subjects and that this is a duplication of existing programs and is not cost efficient. 3. A copy of this resolution shall be sent to each legislator representing all or any portions of cities who are members of this organization. A copy shall be sent to each member City with a letter requesting that their City Council adopt a similar resolution in opposition to the proposed legislation. 4. We encourage the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District to share their ideas and concerns with us when they review our watershed management plan and further that they give similar advice and comments to all other water management organizations. C airman Attest: x / Ze - C Secretary Adopted by the Commission the 12th day of March, 1987. ol /,2 c� Member introduced the following resolution is and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RELATING TO TWO BILLS INTRODUCED IN THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE RELATING TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND GROUND WATER WHEREAS, the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District (HSWCD) also called the Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) has two bills introduced in the 1987 Minnesota Legislature; and WHEREAS, the HCD has sent to the various cities in Hennepin County a summary of both Bills and the Bills relate to a "Local Erosion and Sediment Control Bill for Hennepin County" and a "Local Ground Water Protection Bill for Hennepin County "; and WHEREAS, a review of these two bills indicate that the Bills and Controls contained therein relate only to Hennepin County and not to the rest of the Metropolitan area or the balance of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has previously adopted many laws which relate to erosion and sediment problems and the underground water supply and the responsibilities for these general subjects rest with numerous state agencies, counties, special districts and municipal corporations; and WHEREAS, in 1982 the Minnesota Legislature adopted Chapter 509 (Codified as Minnesota Statutes 473.875 to 473.883) which is known as the "Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act" and said legislation requires that all watersheds within the seven county metropolitan area are required to prepare watershed management plans and within said area there are 46 separate watersheds; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act has the purpose of preventing flooding and erosion from surface flows, improving water quality and promoting ground water recharge and all of said purposes relate to erosion and sediment control and the underground water supply and further requires that all watershed plans must be presented to soil and water conservation districts for their comments; and WHEREAS, the effect of the Bills presented by HCD are limited to Hennepin County and further are limited in that the State, the County, the City of Minneapolis, first ring suburbs (not defined) and agriculture activities are all exempt from HCD controls or permit requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation expands the powers of one soil and water conservation district in the state and requires controls in parts of one county and requires inspections and monitoring in certain areas for "all situations encountered during the period that land grading begins and landscaping is completed on a construction site", and does not indicate where the persons retained to make the inspections or to carry on monitoring activities will get their funds; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the West Mississippi Water Management Organization has studied the summaries presented by the HCD and does not believe that this proposed legislation is necessary or should be approved for the following reasons: A. Any bill relating to erosion and sediment controls should be general legislation or at the very least should apply to all seven counties in the Metropolitan area. B. Ground water travels underground and there is no rationale basis to control these activities on a county by county basis. It is asserted by many experts that the waters pumped from underground wells in the metropolitan area enters the ground at St. Cloud or further north of that area. C. The HCD and all soil and water conservation districts in the metropolitan area are directly involved in establishing watershed management plans under Chapter 509 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.878 requires that all plans be submitted to soil and water conservation districts. If the HCD has a master plan or has specific recommendations relating to erosion and sediment controls, water quality or ground water recharging it can comment and request the WMO, the County, the Metropolitan Council, the DNR, the PCA and the Water Resources Board to include these recommendations in all plans not just in the 12 Watersheds in Hennepin County. Why exclude the 34 Watersheds outside Hennepin County covered by Chapter 509? D. The exemptions included in the Bills for Agriculture, State, County, first ring suburbs and the City of Minneapolis removes the proposed controls from the most densely populated areas and from the areas (agriculture) creating the biggest problems -- nonpoint sources of pollution. E. Requiring inspections of all land disturbing activities in Hennepin County, outside of exempt areas, creates unknown cost problems for some cities and or watersheds. How many people would be required for these inspections? Is this a duplication of activities already being regulated by cities and WMO's? The West Mississippi Watershed is already very concerned by erosion and sediment control problems and the member cities are required to include controls and safe guards in permits being issued. All permit requests being considered under existing regulations are designed RESOLUTION NO. to improve water quality and to enhance ground water recharging. F. The West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission does agree that erosion and sediment controls are necessary and should be included in all watershed management plans being submitted to the Minnesota Water Resources Board. This Commission does believe there is a sufficient amount of legislation covering the subject and that enough governmental bodies are currently involved in establishing and regulating the subjects and that the proposed legislation would be a duplication and is not cost efficient. G. If the proposed legislation is adopted it should apply statewide or at the very least over the entire metropolitan area. H. Duties assigned to cities and WMO's must be funded. The proposed legislation requires some WMO's and some cities to incur additional costs by hiring people to develop and design local plans and this is unnecessary because all soil and water conservation districts can comment and suggest controls or proposed regulations in the WMO planning process. If this legislation is adopted the state should provide these limited areas with sufficient monies to cover their costs. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does concur with the reasons cited by the West Mississippi Water Management Organization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. The City is hereby opposed to the legislation introduced and sponsored by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District as special legislation applying only to parts of Hennepin County. 2. For the reasons cited by the West Mississippi Water Management Organization we request our legislators to vote in opposition to the legislation. We agree that the areas of concern are important and we sincerely believe that there is sufficient current legislation on the subjects and that this is a duplication of existing programs and is not cost efficient. 3. We encourage the Hennepin Soil and Water Conserva- RESOLUTION NO. tion District to share their ideas and concerns with the West Mississippi Water Management Organization when they review the watershed management plan and further that they give similar advice and comments to all other water management organizations. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i gad MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel Coordinator DATE: March 19, 1987 SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation to City Council to Televise Their Commission Meetings on Cable Television At the March 10, 1987 Park and Recreation Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to the City Council that the Commission's meetings be televised on the government access channel of cable television. Attached are drafted minutes from the meeting. D d nq t yr : MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 10, 1987 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chairman Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Skeels, Krefting, Peterson, and Manson. Also present were Councilmember Bill Hawes, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis, and Recording Secretary Geralyn Barone. Commissioner Propst was absent from this evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 20 1987 There was a motion by Commission Skeels and seconded by Commissioner Krefting to approve the minutes of the January 20, 1987 Park and Recreation Commission minutes. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 17 1987 Chairman Sorenson requested that the minutes of the February 17 1987 Park and Recreation Commission meeting be amended in the Paragraph regarding Year 2000 assignments as follows: "It was noted that it would be worthless to install a fishing pier on Twin Lake North at Twin Beach unless the parking problems in the area are handled ". There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Krefting to approve the minutes of the February 17, 1987 Park and Recreation Commission meeting as amended. The motion passed. YEAR 2000 ASSIGNMENTS The Recording Secretary reported that she had contacted cted the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as requested by the Commission regarding the requirements for landing a sea plane on area lakes. She reported that FAA Form 7480 -1, Notice of Proposed Landing Area, must be submitted to the FAA. The FAA conducts a study and rules that the sea plane may not or may land with or without certain stipulations. A copy of the form is filed with the State of Minnesota by the FAA. The Commission requested no further investigation on this item until there is some reason to do so at a future date. The Commission reviewed aerial photos of the Twin Lake North area and discussed options, including adding a canoe launch and /or a fishing pier. There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Manson to direct staff to investigate options at the he orth end y of Twin Lake North including installation of a canoe launch, fishing pier, boat launch, and /or 3-10-87 0 87 -1- D D U [ U 16 1 5 1 D n W a canoe rack. Staff should determine initial costs and costs for upkeep and maintenance, and define the pros and cons of each idea and combinations of those options. Other items to investigate are to determine the depth of the lake at the north end, and what type and the numbers of fish are in the lake. Also, staff is directed to determine the liability of the City for a fishing pier and the other options. Staff is also directed to report back to the Park and Recreation Commission on these items. The motion passed. The Commission reviewed aerial photos of the Kylawn preserve area, and continued this item for further discussion in the fall after the Twin Lake North options have been reviewed. The Commission will schedule a parks tour for the May 1987 meeting, and Kylawn preserve area will be toured at that time. The Director of Recreation asked if there is any interest in changing the beach area on Twin Lake North, and Chairman Sorenson said his preference is to leave it as is. Commissioners Peterson and Krefting said they had no preference in the matter. Chairman Sorenson noted that the Park and Recreation Commission has never said the area should not be a beach. Councilmember Hawes said if he lived in this area he would be very upset if the beach was removed. Chairman Sorenson said he does not agree that the streets are posted "No Parking" in the area, particularly because it creates problems for people trying to launch boats (there is nowhere for these people to park). Commissioner Skeels said he agreed with the Chairman on this issue, seeing no reason to deny the use of the area as a beach. The Director of Recreation disagreed with the Commission, noting the problems created as a result of the beach, such as the mess left after the use of the beach. Commissioner Manson pointed out that people will still use the area regardless of what is done with it. Councilmember Hawes said it would be difficult to dispose of all the sand. He added that if the beach could be converted to something that would eliminate the problems completely, he would go along with it; however, he does not think there is such a solution. Commissioner.Krefting asked who uses the beach, and the Director of Recreation said people come from all over this area. Chairman Sorenson pointed out that the east side of the lake is ideal for a beach because of the direction of the sun. Before any action is taken, he requested to see more proposals for this area besides just closing the beach. The Commission requested that staff prepare any suggestions with regard to the use of Kylawn preserve and the beach on Twin Lake North, and report back to the Commission. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TRENDS ISSUES AND GOALS The Recording Secretary distributed a report entitled "City of Brooklyn Center Summary Statement of Trends, Issues and Goals ". 3 -10 -87 -2- P MPM She asked the Park and Recreation Commission to review this report and invited the Commission to attend a planning session with the City Council, staff, and other commission members. The Recording Secretary said she would notify the Commission when the date, time, and location of the session are known. NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK Chairman Sorenson said the ad hoc committee has recommended to the City Council that the land east of Lyndale Avenue North between 53rd and 57th Avenues North be incorporated into the Regional Park plan, the same recommendation as the Park and Recreation Commission has already made to the City Council. Councilmember Hawes said for those who do not want to sell their property at the present, City Council approval to have the land condemned will be necessary; therefore, people should not be forced out of their homes. Chairman Sorenson noted the City cannot afford to develop the property, so it is best to go with a Regional Park. There was some discussion by the Commission regarding the properties in the area and the uses of the properties. GOLF COURSE UPDATE The Director of Recreation reported that Kurt Johnson has been hired as the Golf Course Manager. Mr. Johnson will be starting his new position on April 20, 1987. The Director of Recreation noted that the final inspection of the clubhouse will be conducted next week. He added the final fine grading will be • started within the next few weeks. The Director of Recreation said the Little League concession stand is done, and there will be some work done on the fields when the weather improves. REVIEW OF GENERAL ORDINANCES Chairman Sorenson said the Commission will review and discuss in detail at the next Commission meeting Chapter 13 of the City ordinances regarding parks and recreation. He pointed out that there are several parts of the ordinance that need to be updated; for example, the title of "Director of Park and Recreation" should be changed to "Director of Recreation ". Chairman Sorenson said that in section 13 -103, alcoholic beverages are prohibited for neighborhood groups, and the Chairman expressed his unhappiness about this situation. He added that he would like to see included in the ordinance a timely method of appeal for denied permits. Chairman Sorenson said section 13 -115 should be deleted because people should use cans and should not be allowed to have glass beverage containers at all. Commissioner Skeels requested that copies of ordinances from other cities regarding parks and recreation be obtained for review by the Commission. He expressed concern for making drinking too open in the parks. Chairman Sorenson said that parties with a permit should have to display it in the parks. Commissioner Skeels suggested that a permit be issued to reserve 3 -10 -87 -3- 3 D D D facilities at the parks, such as fields. He requested that the ordinances be reviewed to determine if a permit is cited elsewhere in the City ordinances; otherwise, the Commission should think about adding a section on this. Commissioner Krefting asked which parks children who are not on organized teams can use, and the Director of Recreation reviewed the locations. He noted that there are not many parks that are not scheduled for activities during the summer. KALEIDOSCOPE The Recording Secretary noted that Kaleidoscope is scheduled for April 5, 1987 from 11:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at Brooklyn Center High School. The Commissioners signed up to work at the Park and Recreation booth as follows: 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Arnie Mavis, Bud Sorenson 1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Dave Skeels, Don Peterson 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. Carl Manson, Don Krefting The Director of Recreation said he will obtain a putting machine and give free swim passes to those making the putt on their first attempt. A greens mower will be at Kaleidoscope, as well as a layout of the golf course. Commissioner Krefting asked for information about the golf course, and a fact sheet will be sent to the Commissioners prior to Kaleidoscope. Commissioner Peterson asked how many feet of shoreline the beach on Twin Lake North occupies, and Councilmember Hawes said it is about 500 feet. The Recording Secretary will send a memo on e to the Commissioners Kaleidoscope prior to A p p Aril 5, 1987. FACILITY NEEDS This item was tabled until the next Park and Recreation Commission meeting. NEXT MEETING The Commission agreed that they would return to the third Tuesday of the month for their meetings. The next meeting is scheduled for April 21, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. It was determined that the May meeting will be a tour of the parks, and this is scheduled for May 19, 1987 at 6:00 p.m. RESOLUTIONS AND BYLAWS The Recording Secretary reviewed the City Council's request that the Commission take a look at the amendments to the enabling resolution and bylaws of the Park and Recreation Commission. This item will be further discussed at the next Commission meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Sorenson asked why the City Council meetings or any of the other advisory commission meetings are not televised on cable television. The Recording Secretary said the City is not adequately staffed at this point in time to do so. Chairman Sorenson suggested g that volunteers lunteers be used and the Recording 3 -10 -87 -4- P a o Secretary said that the Commission should discuss this with the Mayor and City Council. There was a motion by Commissioner Skeels and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to recommend to the City Council that the Park and Recreation Commission meetings be televised on cable television. The motion passed. There was also a suggestion that the agendas of the Commissions be posted on cable television on the day of the meetings. Commissioner Krefting noted that volleyball is an up and coming team sport, and asked if there are any sand courts in the City. The Director of Recreation said there are two such courts at Northport Park, which are used by mixed leagues. Commissioner Krefting requested that trash cans be put in place in the parks. He noted that with the warm weather there are a lot of folks using the parks, so it would be nice to have the trash cans in place. The Recording Secretary reported on a question from a previous meeting that the golf course sprinkling system originates from the City's water system. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Chairman 3 -10 -87 -5- 5 LABOR RELATIONS ASSOCIATES, INC. IZ5 7501 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, Minnesota 55427 612/546.1470 March 3, 1987 TO: Tim R. Connors IUOE, Local No. 49 Gerald Splinter, Chairman MAMA -49 Neg ''ating Committee FROM: C. F. Smythe ;Consultant r SUBJECT: 1987 -1989 MAMA -49 MASTER AGREEMENT Enclosed is a copy of the revised MAMA -49 MASTER AGREEMENT for the period January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1989. A summary of the revised pages is attached to the MASTER AGREEMENT. Please review and call me with your comments and /or changes. CFS : hf c Encl. REVISED PAGES TO THE MAMA-49 MASTER AGREEMENT. 1. Cover Page New duration dates of January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1989. The City of White Bear Lake is deleted and the City of Woodbury is added. 2. Table of Contents Holiday article deleted and subsequent articles renumbered. 3. Page 15, ARTICLE XIX - INSURANCE The Employer contribution in Section 19.1 increased to $175.00 for 1987. Section 19.2 changed to provide for a reopening of the amount in section 19.1 for contract years 1988 and 1989. 4. Page 16 : ARTICLE XX - HOLIDAYS deleted and subsequent articles renumbered. 5. Page 18, ARTICLE XXII - DURATION New duration dates of January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1989 with a reopener on wages and insurance for 1988 and 1989. 6. Page 19, APPENDIX A : For 1987 a three ercent 3% increase P ( ) e se applied to the 1986 wage rates. 7. Page 21, APPENDIX B - LOCAL ADDENDUM Effective dates changed to _ g January 1, 1987 through December 31, 1989. MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (MAMA) REPRESENTING THE CITIES OF: Blaine Eden Prairie New Hope Brooklyn Center Edina Oakdale Brooklyn Park Fridley Richfield Burnsville Golden Valley Robbinsdale Circle Pines Hopkins Roseville Columbia Heights Minnetonka St. Anthony Cottage Grove Mounds View St. Louis Park Crystal Woodbury AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS (IUOE) LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO JANUARY 1, 1987 - DECEMBER 31, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE PAGE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II RECOGNITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IIIUNION SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IVEMPLOYER SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 VEMPLOYER AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 VI EMPLOYEE RIGHTS- GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . 3 VIIDEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 IX WORK SCHEDULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 XOVERTIME PAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 XICALL BACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 XII LEGAL DEFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 XIII RIGHT OF SUBCONTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 XIVDISCIPLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 XVSENIORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 XVI PROBATIONARY PERIODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 XVI I SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 XVIII JOB POSTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 XIXINSURANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 XX SCOPE OF AGREEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 XXIWAIVER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 XXIIDURATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 APPENDIX A - WAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 APPENDIX B - LOCAL ADDENDUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of hereinafter called the EMPLOYER, and Local No. 49, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL -CIO, hereinafter called the UNION. The intent and purpose of this AGREEMENT is to: is 1.1 Establish certain hours wages and other g o er conditions of employment; 1.2 Establish rocedures for the e resolution of disputes concerning this AGREEMENT'S interpretation and /or application; 1.3 Specify the full and complete understanding of the parties; and 1.4 Place in written form the parties' agreement upon terms and conditions of employment for the duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION, through this AGREEMENT, continue their dedication to the highest quality of public service. Both parties recognize this AGREEMENT as a pledge of this dedication. -1- ARTICLE II RECOGNITION The EMPLOYER recognizes the UNION as the exclusive representative for all job classifications listed below whose employment service exceeds the lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal work week and more than 100 work days per year, excluding supervisory, confidential and all other employees: ARTICLE III UNION SECURITY In recognition of the UNION as the exclusive representative the EMPLOYER shall: 3.1 Deduct each a p yroll period an amount sufficient to provide the payment of dues established by the UNION from the wages of all employees authorizing in writing such deduction, and 3.2 Remit such deduction to the appropriate designated officer of the UNION. 3.3 The UNION may designate certain employees from the bargaining unit to act as stewards and shall inform the EMPLOYER in writing of such choice. 3.4 The UNION agrees to indemnify and hold the EMPLOYER harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the City as a result of any action taken or not taken by the City under the provisions of this Article. -2- ARTICLE IV EMPLOYER SECURITY The UNION agrees that during the life of this AGREEMENT it will not cause, encourage, participate in or support any strike, slow down, other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE V EMPLOYER AUTHORITY 5.1 The EMPLOYER retains the full and unrestricted right to operate and manage all manpower, facilities, and equipment to establish functions and programs; to set and amend budgets; to determine the utilization of technology; to establish and modify the organizational structure; to select, direct and determine the number of personnel; to establish work schedules; and to perform any inherent managerial function not specifically limited by this AGREEMENT. 5.2 Any term and condition of employment not specifically established or modified by this AGREEMENT shall remain solely within the discretion of the EMPLOYER to modify, establish, or eliminate. ARTICLE VI EMPLOYEE RIGHTS - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 6.1 DEFINITION OF A GRIEVANCE A grievance is defined as a dispute or disagreement as to the interpretation or application of the specific terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. -3- 6.2 UNION REPRESENTATIVES The EMPLOYER will recognize representatives designated b the 9 P 9 Y UNION as the grievance representatives of the bargaining unit having the duties and responsibilities established by this Article. The UNION shall notify the EMPLOYER in writing of the names of such UNION representatives and of their successors when so designated. 6.3 PROCESSING OF A GRIEVANCE It is recognized and accepted by the UNION and the EMPLOYER that the processing of grievances as hereinafter provided is limited by the job duties and responsibilities of the EMPLOYEES and shall therefore be accomplished during normal working hours only when consistent with such EMPLOYEE duties and responsibilities. The aggrieved EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE shall be allowed a reasonable amount of time without loss in pay when a grievance is investigated and presented to the EMPLOYER during normal working hours provided the EMPLOYEE and the UNION REPRESENTATIVE have notified and received the approval of the designated supervisor who has determined that such absence is reasonable and would not be detrimental to the work programs of the EMPLOYER. 6.4 PROCEDURE Grievances, as defined by Section 6.1, shall be resolved in conformance with the following procedure: -4- Step 1 . An EMPLOYEE claiming a violation concerning the interpretation or application of this AGREEMENT shall, within twenty-one 21 calendar y ( ) e ar days after such alleged violation has occurred, present such grievance to the EMPLOYEE'S supervisor as designated by the EMPLOYER. The EMPLOYER - designated representative will discuss and give an answer to such Step 1 grievance within ten (10) calendar days after receipt. A grievance not resolved in Step 1 and appealed to Step 2 shall be placed in writing setting forth the nature of the grievance, the facts on which it is based, the provision or provisions of the AGREEMENT allegedly violated, and the remedy requested and shall be appealed to Step 2 within ten (10) calendar days after the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final answer in Step 1. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 2 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 2 . If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 2 representative. The EMPLOYER - designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S Step 2 answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 2 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 2 may be appealed to Step 3 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER - designated representative's -5- final Step 2 answer. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 3 b the UNION within ten 10 Y ( ) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 3 . If appealed, the written grievance shall be presented by the UNION and discussed with the EMPLOYER- designated Step 3 representative. The EMPLOYER- designated representative shall give the UNION the EMPLOYER'S answer in writing within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of such Step 3 grievance. A grievance not resolved in Step 3 may be appealed to Step 4 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER- designated representative's final answer in Step 3. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 4 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 4 . A grievance unresolved in Step 3 and appealed in Step 4 shall be submitted to the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services. A grievance not resolved in Step 4 may be appealed to Step 5 within ten (10) calendar days following the EMPLOYER'S final answer in Step 4. Any grievance not appealed in writing to Step 5 by the UNION within ten (10) calendar days shall be considered waived. Step 5 . A grievance unresolved in Step 4 and appealed in Step 5 shall be submitted to arbitration subject to the provisions of the Public Employment Labor -6- Relations Act of 1971, as amended. The selection of an arbitrator shall be made in accordance with the "Rules Governing the Arbitration of Grievances" as established by the Public Employment Relations Board. 6.5 ARBITRATOR'S AUTHORITY A. The arbitrator shall have no right to amend, modify, nullify, ignore, add to, or subtract from the terms and conditions of this AGREEMENT. The arbitrator shall consider and decide only the specific issue(s) submitted in writing by the EMPLOYER and the UNION, and shall have no authority to make a decision on any other issue not so submitted. B. The arbitrator shall be without power to make decisions contrary to, or inconsistent with, or modifying or varying in any way the application of laws rules, , or regulations having the force and effect of law. The arbitrator's decision. shall be submitted in writing within thirty (30) days following the close of the hearing or the submission of briefs by the parties, whichever be later, unless the parties agree to an extension. The decision shall be binding on both the EMPLOYER and the UNION and shall be based solely on the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the express terms of this AGREEMENT and to the facts of the grievance presented. C. The fees and expenses for the arbitrator's services and proceedings shall be borne equally by the EMPLOYER and the UNION provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. If either party desires a verbatim record of the proceedings, it may cause such a record to be made, providing it pays for the record. If both parties desire a verbatim record of the proceedings the cost shall be shared equally. 6.6 WAIVER If a grievance is not presented within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered "waived." If a grievance is not appealed to the next step within the specified time limit or any agreed extension thereof, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the EMPLOYER'S last answer. If the EMPLOYER does not answer a grievance or an appeal thereof within the specified time limits, the UNION may elect to treat the grievance as denied at that step and immediately appeal the grievance to the next step. The time limit in each step may be extended by mutual agreement of the EMPLOYER and the UNION. 6.7 CHOICE OF REMEDY If, as a result of the EMPLOYER response in Step 4, the grievance remains unresolved, and if the grievance involves the suspension, demotion, or discharge of an employee who has completed the required probationary period, the grievance may -8- be appealed either to Step 5 of ARTICLE VI or a procedure such as: Civil Service, Veteran's Preference, or Fair Employment. If appealed to any procedure other than Step 5 of ARTICLE IV the grievance is not subject to the arbitration procedure as provided in Step 5 of ARTICLE VI. The aggrieved employee shall indicate in writing which procedure is to be utilized- -Step 5 of ARTICLE VI or another appeal procedure- -and shall sign a statement to the effect that the choice of any other hearing precludes the aggrieved employee from making a subsequent appeal through Step 5 of ARTICLE VI. ARTICLE VII DEFINITIONS 7.1 UNION The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO. 7.2 EMPLOYER The individual municipality designated by this AGREEMENT. 7.3 UNION MEMBER A member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 49, AFL -CIO. 7.4 EMPLOYEE A member of the exclusively recognized bargaining unit. 7.5 BASE PAY RATE The employee's hourly pay rate exclusive of longevity or any other special allowance. 7.6 SENIORITY Length of continuous service in any of the job classifications covered by ARTICLE II - RECOGNITION. Employees who are promoted from a job classification covered by this AGREEMENT and return to a job classification covered by this AGREEMENT shall have their seniority calculated on their length of service under this AGREEMENT for purposes of promotion, transfer and lay off and total length of service with the EMPLOYER for other benefits under this AGREEMENT. 7.7 SEVERANCE PAY Payment made to an employee upon honorable termination of employment. 7.8 OVERTIME Work performed at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER in excess of either eight (8) hours within a twenty -four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (7) day period. 7.9 CALL BACK Return of an employee to a specified work site to perform assigned duties at the express authorization of the EMPLOYER at a time other than an assigned shift. An extension of or early report to an assigned shift is not a call back. ARTICLE VIII SAVINGS CLAUSE This AGREEMENT is subject to the laws of the United States, the State of Minnesota, and the signed municipality. In the event any provision of this AGREEMENT shall be held to be contrary to law by a court of competent jurisdiction from whose final judgment or decree no appeal has been taken within the time provided, such provision shall be voided. All other provisions of this AGREEMENT shall continue in full force and effect. The voided provision may be renegotiated at the request of either party. • -10- ARTICLE IX WORK SCHEDULES 9.1 The sole authority is work schedules is the EMPLOYER. The normal work day for an employee shall be eight (8) hours. The normal work week shall be forty (40) hours Monday through Friday. 9.2 Service to the public may require the establishment of regular shifts for some employees on a daily, weekly, seasonal, or annual basis other than the normal 8:00 -4:30 day. The EMPLOYER will give seven (7) days advance notice to the employees affected by the establishment of work days different from the employee's normal eight (8) hour work day. 9.3 In the event that work is required because of unusual circumstances such as (but not limited to) fire, flood, snow, sleet, or breakdown of municipal equipment or facilities, no advance notice need be given. It is not required that an employee working other than the normal work day be scheduled to work more than eight (8) hours, however, each employee has an obligation to work overtime time or call backs if requested unless unusual circumstances prevent the employee from so working. 9.4 Service to the public may require the establishment of regular work weeks that schedule work on Saturdays and /or Sundays. -11- ARTICLE X OVERTIME PAY 10.1 Hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours within a twenty —four (24) hour period (except for shift changes) or more than forty (40) hours within a seven (7) day period will be compensated for at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's regular base pay rate. 10.2 Overtime will be distributed as equally as practicable. 10.3 Overtime refused by employees will for record purposes under ARTICLE 10.2 be considered as unpaid overtime worked. 10.4 For the purpose of computing overtime compensation, overtime hours worked shall not be pyramided, compounded, or paid twice for the same hours worked. ARTICLE XI CALL BACK An employee called in for work at a time other than the employee's normal scheduled shift will be compensated for a minimum of two (2) hours' pay at one and one -half (1 -1/2) times the employee's base pay rate. ARTICLE XII LEGAL DEFENSE 12.1 Employees involved in litigation because of negligence, ignorance of laws, non - observance of laws, or as a result of employee judgmental decision may not receive legal defense by the municipality. 12.2 Any employee who is charged with a traffic violation, ordinance violation or criminal offense arising from acts -12- performed within the scope of the employee's employment, when such act is performed in good faith and under direct order of the employee's supervisor, shall be reimbursed for reasonable attorney's fees and court costs actually incurred by such employee in defending against such charge. ARTICLE XIII RIGHT OF SUBCONTRACT Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall prohibit or restrict the right of the EMPLOYER from subcontracting work performed by employees covered by this AGREEMENT. ARTICLE XIV DISCIPLINE The EMPLOYER will discipline employees only for just cause. ARTICLE XV SENIORITY 15.1 Seniority will be the determining criterion for transfers, promotions and lay offs only when all job- relevant qualification factors are equal. 15.2 Seniority will be the determining criterion for recall when the job - relevant qualification factors are equal. Recall rights under this provision will continue for twenty -four (24) months after lay off. Recalled employees shall have ten (10) working days after notification of recall by registered mail at the employee's last known address to report to work or forfeit all recall rights. -13- ARTICLE XVI PROBATIONARY PERIODS 16.1 All newly hired or rehired employees will serve a six (6) months' probationary period. 16.2 All employees will serve a'six (6) months' probationary period in any job classification in which the employee has not serve a probationary period. 16.3 At any time during the probationary period a newly hired or rehired employee may be terminated at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. 16.4 At any time during the probationary period a promoted or reassigned employee may be demoted or reassigned to the employee's previous position at the sole discretion of the EMPLOYER. ARTICLE XVII SAFETY The EMPLOYER and the UNION agree to jointly promote safe and healthful working conditions, to cooperate in safety matters and to encourage employees to work in a safe manner. ARTICLE XVIII JOB POSTING 18.1 The EMPLOYER and the UNION agree that permanent job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit shall be filled based on the concept of promotion from within provided that applicants: 18.11 have the necessary qualifications to meet the standards of the job vacancy; and -14- 18.12 have the ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the job vacancy. 18.2 Employees filling a higher job class based on the provisions of this ARTICLE shall be subject to the conditions of ARTICLE XVI (PROBATIONARY PERIOD). 18.3 The EMPLOYER has the right of final decision in the selection of employees to fill posted jobs based on qualifications, abilities and experience. 18.4 Job vacancies within the designated bargaining unit will be posted for five (5) working days so that members of the bargaining unit can be considered for such vacancies. ARTICLE XIX INSURANCE 19.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute u to a maximum um of one hundred seventy -five dollars ($175.00) per month per employee for group health and life insurance including dependent coverage for calendar 1987. 19.2 The subject of insurance(s) will be open for negotiations beginning with the 1988 and 1989 contract years. 19.3 By mutual agreement employees may use fifteen dollars ($15.00) of the per month per employee of health insurance dollars in 19.1 and 19.2 for dental insurance for all unit employees. -15- 19.4 Employees not choosing dependent coverage cannot be covered at EMPLOYER expense for any additional insurance than the individual group health and group life insurance. Additional life insurance can be purchased by employees at the employee's expense to the extent allowed under the EMPLOYER'S group policy. 19.5 Individual employees may provide for an increased EMPLOYER contribution for insurances over that amount stipulated by 19.1, 19.2 and 19.3 by lowering their salary from the rates stipulated in APPENDIX A to provide for an increased EMPLOYER contribution which will fully pay for the employee's health, life, and dental insurance, including dependent coverage. ARTICLE XX SCOPE OF AGREEMENTS No addendum to this MASTER AGREEMENT can be in conflict with this MASTER AGREEMENT. -16- ARTICLE XXI WAIVER 21.1 Any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, policies, rules and regulations regarding terms and conditions of employment, to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this AGREEMENT, are hereby superseded. 21.2 The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this AGREEMENT, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands and proposals with respect to any terms or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this AGREEMENT for the stipulated duration of this AGREEMENT. The EMPLOYER and the UNION each voluntarily and unqualifiedly waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment referred to or covered in this AGREEMENT or with respect to any term or condition of employment not specifically referred to or covered by this AGREEMENT, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both parties at the time this contract was negotiated or executed. -17- ARTICLE XXII DURATION This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of January 1, 1987 and shall remain in full force and effect until the 31st day of December, 1989 , except that either party may reopen for negotiations for calendar 1988 and calendar 1989 the wage rates in APPENDIX A and the amount of insurance to be shown in ARTICLE 19.2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on this day of 198 FOR THE METROPOLITAN REA MAN �� M ENT ASSO SAT ON' FOR THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL -CIO: FOR THE CITY OF -18- APPENDIX A WAGES A. The following wage schedule will be in effect from the first payroll period in 1987 through the last payroll period in 1987: MAINTENANCE III . . . . . . . . . . $ 12.60 per hour MAINTENANCE II . . . . . . . . . 12.10 per hour MAINTENANCE I . . . . . . . . . . . 8.72 per hour B. All new employees hired after February 7, 1984 may be classified at the sole discretion of the individual cities covered by this AGREEMENT as MAINTENANCE I and receive Working Out of Classification pay as provided by Section C of this APPENDIX. C. WORKING OUT OF CLASSIFICATION PAY C -1. Employees required by the EMPLOYER and who are adjudged by the EMPLOYER to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the MAINTENANCE III rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: (Heavy Equipment items are those as listed in the LOCAL ADDENDUM to this MASTER AGREEMENT.) -19- APPENDIX A (continued) C -2. Employees hired after February 7, 1984 in the MAINTENANCE I classification who are required by the EMPLOYER and who are adjudged by the EMPLOYER to be qualified to operate the following items of equipment will be paid the MAINTENANCE II rate of pay for those hours assigned to the unit: Backhoe - Under 15' Reach Blacktop Paver Bobcat - Bombardier or MT Trackless Boom Truck Boom Truck - 30' and Over Brush Chipper Cement Mixer Chip Spreader /Self - Propelled Crawler Tractor - Under 50 H.P. Loader - 1 Yd. or More Loader, Front -End, 4 WD - 1 Yd. to 2.5 Yds. Oil Distributor Paint Striper - Truck Mounted Rollers (steel and rubber) Over 6 Ton Rollers - 6 Ton and Over Sewer Cleaner, Hydraulic and Vacuum Steam Boiler Street Sweepers - Pickup Type Tandems Tree Spade Trucks - 10 Ton, 4 WD Trucks - Single -Axle Over 24,000 GVW Any vehicle requiring a State of Minnesota "Class B" Operators License C -3. Employees assigned by the EMPLOYER to Utility Operator will be paid the wage rate of the job classification to which the employee is assigned. -20- APPENDIX B LOCAL ADDENDUM This supplementary agreement is entered into between the City of and the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 49, AFL -CIO, for the period beginning January 1, 1987 and terminating on December 31, 1989. Nothing in this supplementary agreement may be in conflict with any provision of the MASTER AGREEMENT between MAMA, the City of and I.U.O.E., Local No. 49, AFL -CIO. In the event of conflict the MASTER AGREEMENT will prevail. B-1. -21- Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 23, 1987: 0 CIGARETTE LICENSE D.V.M. Inc. 119 State Street Green Mill Inn 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard City Clerk FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE T.J. Applebee's Brookdale Center Bakers Square 5601 Xerxes Avenue North Baskin Robbins 1277 Brookdale Center Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Boulevard Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Drive Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center Athletic Boosters 5620 Humboldt Avenue North Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Avenue North Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Fanny Farmer Candy Shop Brookdale Center Kim Fung 5704 Morgan Avenue North Green Mill Inn, Inc. 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard Ground Round, Inc. 2545 County Road 10 Hiway 100 N. France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue N. Holida Inn 1501 Freewa y Boulevard Jerry's Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Avenue North Kentucky F ried tied Chicken. 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard Korean Presbyterian Church 6830 Quail Avenue North Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive Northwest Residence 4408 69th Avenue North Nutrition World 1271 Brookdale Center 1 Potato 2, Inc. Brookdale Center Orange Julius Brookdale Center Red Lobster Restaurant 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Rocky Rococo 1267 Brookdale Center St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Avenue North Sears, Roebuck and Co. Brookdale Center Super America #4160 6545 West River Road Super America #58 1901 57th Avenue North Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle Tombstone Pizza Corporation 6850 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULER'S LICENSE Crosstown Sanitation P.O. Box 4 1543 4 - d Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center American Legion Evergreen Park --� Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Avenue N. /. 4. T /,/VIa, _ Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE ble Mechanical Services 8701 Hillswick Trail er, Inc. Box 1146 All Season Comfort, Inc. 55 Mound Street Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way American Burner Service 601 North Prior Avenue 0 Blaine Heating, Air Cond. & Elec. 13562 Central Avenue NE Dependable Heating & Air Cond. 2619 Coon Rapids Blvd. Ditter, Inc. 3570 Kilkenny Lane Environ -Con, Inc. Box 1351 General Sheet Metal Corp. 2330 Louisiana Avenue N. Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 5000 North County Road 18 J.K. Heating Company 2050 White Bear Avenue Midwestern Mechanical Corp. 9103 Davenport Street NE Modern Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 2318 First Street NE Noel's Heating & Air Cond., Inc. 4920 Zachary Lane Riccar Heating 3095 162nd Lane NW Sedgwick Heating & Air Cond. 8910 Wentworth Avenue S. Snelling Mechanical 1402 Concordia Avenue Standard Heating & Air Cond. Co. 410 West Lake Street Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Avenue North Ray Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Avenue Yale, Inc. 9649 Girard Avenue S. J q L BuildiQ Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Bro- Midwest Vending 8850 Wentworth Avenue S. American Legion 4307 70th Avenue North Highland Superstore 5951 Earle Brown Drive alp- Sanitarian Aft RENTAL DWE LLING LICENSE Initial: John L. Trowbridge 7229 Camden Avenue N. George Hanson 1510 69th Avenue N. Renewal: Miller Management Co., Inc. Willow Lane Apartments Luann Falenczykowski 6000 Abbott Avenue N. Boyer Palmer 6101 Beard Avenue N. C.C. Hogen 5030 Brooklyn Boulevard Curtis and Audrey Cady 6915 Brooklyn Boulevard Earl James Backer 7018 Brooklyn Boulevard Richard Olson 5818 Humboldt Avenue N. Roland Scherber 4714 Lakeview Avenue N. Richard Bergstrom 5400 Russell Avenue N. Julie and Sharon Haugen 4806 Twin Lake Ave. N. Joseph Veidel 7104 Unity Avenue N. Raymond and Betty Anderson 7113 Willow Lane Robert and Patrician Bobleter 4807 Wingard Place Catherine Shefeluk 3018 51st Avenue N. Leo J. Vogel 2841 67th Lane Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Leroy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Avenue N. ) Buildi g Official SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Brookwood Estates 6201 North Lilac Drive Chippewa Park Apartments 6507 Camden Avenue N. Columbus Village Apartments 507 70th Avenue North Earle Brown Farm Apartments 1701 69th Avenue North Evergreen Park Manor 7200 Camden Avenue N. Four Court Apartments 2836 Northwa Y Drive Garden City Court Apartments 3407 65th Avenue North Hiway 100 North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Moorwood Homeowners Association 5809 Lake Curve Lane North Lyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. `� Northbrook Apartments 1302 69th Avenue N. 1 .�fy�, Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL 00 .X. D. K. Weeks, City Clerk i