Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 08-12 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 12, 1985 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 a. July 8, 1985 - Regular Session b. July 11, 1985 - Special Session c. July 22, 1985 - Regular Session 7. Performance Guarantee Foreclosure a. Hi Crest Square Estates, 69th Avenue North and Fremont Place 1. Resolution Approving Inspection Report on Hi Crest Square Estates and Directing Staff to Complete Work with Funds Guaranteed under Letter of Credit from Camden Northwestern Bank 8. Resolutions: • a. Recognizing Achievements of Dr. Robert I. Shragg • b. Awarding Contract to AEC Regarding Structural Analysis of Earle Brown Farm Property • C. Granting Final Approval for Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds -This item refers to the Brookwood Estates Apartment Project • d. Establishing Improvement Project No. 1985 -24 (Installation of Sidewalk on West Side of Humboldt Avenue North between 71st Avenue and Amy Lane) and Accepting Quotations for Construction Thereof • e. Accepting Quotations for Replacing Windows and Installing Weatherstripping on Windows and Doors at Community Center Swimming Pool • f. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1985 -L (Installation of Fuel Tanks and Dispensers at Municipal Service Garage) • g. Establishing Project No. 1985 -25 (H.V.A.C. System Improvements at West Fire Station /Liquor No. 2) and Approving Agreement with Oftedal, Locke and Broadston for Professional Services for Design Thereof 'I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 12, 1985 h. Establishing Policy for Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age and for Persons Who are Totally and Permanently Disabled i. Approving Five Year Municipal State Aid Street Construction Program *j. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1985 -D (Police Department Remodeling) 9. Final Plat Approval: a. Tanami Addition 1. Resolution Approving Subdivision Agreement 10. Planning Commission Item: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 85009 submitted by Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. for rezoning of the 4.5 acre parcel at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard from R5 to C1. This application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 9, 1985 meeting, was tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 11, 1985 meeting. The City Council reviewed this application at its July 22, 1985 meeting and tabled it to this evening's meeting awaiting further information on the application. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Application No. 85009 Submitted by Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. -This item formally approves the rezoning of the property. 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Zoning Classification of Certain Land -This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. 3. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Making Churches, Chapels, and Synagogues a Special Use in C1 and C2 Zoning Districts -This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. Currently churches, chapels, and synagogues are permitted uses in C1 and C2 zoning districts, and the ordinance would make them special uses in the districts. b. Planning Commission Application No. 85017 submitted by Arby's requesting special use permit approval to operate a convenience food restaurant in the Brookdale Mall. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 25, 1985 meeting. e. Planning Commission Application No. 85016 submitted by Village Properties for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a temporary 1' setback off Highway 252 right -of -way and to allow a density variance of two units at the Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 -7224 Camden Avenue North. Staff will be prepared to update the City Council on the status of this application. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 12, 1985 11. Discussion Items: a. Allocation of Industrial Revenue Bonds -Staff will be prepared to discuss the City's current status as related to industrial revenue bonds. b. Licensing Fee for Amusement Devices - Thiesen Vending Company has requested to appear before the City Council this evening o discuss the fee structure. Staff w' u e S will 11 be prepared to discuss the current ordinance. *12. Licenses 13. Adjournment 6a, MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 8, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Bob Zeines, of'Brooklyn United Methodist Church. 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. i CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested that items 8h, 8i, and 8j be removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested that items 7, and 8e be removed from the Consent Agenda. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -117 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER ROTARY CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis;` and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -118 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor- .thereof : Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the 7 -8 -85 -1- R following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -119 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT FRCM THE BROOKLYN CENTER JAYCEE WOMEN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution w as declared g o � A duly passed an Y A d adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -120 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -121 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -G (XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 - 09) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Community Ctr. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Davanni's 5937 Summit Dr. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Show Biz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. United Artists Theater 5810 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. 7 -8 -85 -2- R AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR Century rp. - 2910 W. Montrose Ave. GARBAGE & REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Fragrance Trucking 99 NW 99th Ln. Klein Sanitation Co. 10690 100th Ave. N. Metro Refuse 8168 W. 125th St. Waste Management 10050 Naples St. NE Art Willman & Son 62 26th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE J.K. Heating 11150 Buchana Ave. NE READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE North France Health lub 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 24, 1985 There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of June 24, 1985 as corrected. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Hawes, Theis and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Scott abstained from voting as she was not present at the June 24, 1985 meeting. PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCTION FOR THE POND'S, PLAT 5 Councilmember Theis asked what work needs to be completed yet, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated approximately 20% of the landscaping needs to be completed. Councilmember Theis inquired as to the amount of money saved by reducing the bond from $50,000 to $10,000, and the Director of Planning & Inspection responded saying about an 80% reduction would occur. Councilmember Theis wondered how old the section in question is, and the Director of Planning & Inspection responded saying the area in question is the middle section, which is the very last area to be developed and construction began approximately one and one -half years ago. He added the bond originated in 1982. Councilmember Theis asked if progress is being made on the landscaping, and the Director of Planning & Inspection responded affirmatively, adding the Homeowners' Association feels the bond reduction is fair and equitable. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to reduce the performance bond from $50,000 to $10,000 for the Pond's, Plat 5 72nd Circle and Unity Avenue North, Planning Commission Application No. 79031. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Declaring Property at 58th & Drew Avenues North as Hazardous. Councilmember Theis inquired if compliance with the law is met, whether or not a drastic amount of the hedge would be removed, taking out far more than is necessary. The City Manager stated that the hedge has been a problem over a number of years and it has been cut in the past. However, in the past one and 7 -8 -85 -3- one -half years, there has been difficulty obtaining compliance with the homeowner even though the City has offered to mark the hedge for cutting. He added there is a high amount of traffic particularly on weekends because of the church in the area. 0 The City Manager stated the hedge can be trimmed to an acceptable level or it can be taken out, but trimming will not eliminate the hazard. Councilmember Theis asked the City Attorney what procedure is necessary if the resolution is passed. The City Attorney stated the City is on notice resulting from a number of complaints and the requested cutback is what the City ordinance requires. He added if an accident occurs and it is established that the City did not fully enforce the ordinance the City would be liable; therefore he recommends full compliance with the hazardous building law. For enforcement, an order would be served on the property owner with a certain number of days to respond, and then a judge would have to determine whether or not the property is hazardous. Councilmember Theis stated he did not see anything on hazardous shrubs in the law, and the City Attorney stated the statute addresses hazardous buildings and hazardous conditions. Councilmember Theis asked the City Attorney how much effort had been made from the Attorney's firm to find the resident's phone number. The City Attorney responded stating it would be an incorrect assumption that his 'firm had not been in contact with the resident. Councilmember Theis referred to a letter dated June 5, 1985 from the City Attorney which states the City Attorney was unable to find a telephone number for the resident. The City Manager said he knew the homeowner had�been contacted, and the City Attorney reaffirmed this statement. Mayor Nyquist asked if the resident had been informed of the resolution and its appearance on this evening's agenda, and the City Manager stated she had not been notified. Councilmember Theis requested the City Attorney to determine why his office stated in a letter that they were unable to obtain a phone number. Councilmember Lhotka asked how many complaints had been received, and the City Manager stated approximately five to ten people had complained. The Deputy City Clerk stated that the original complaint was made in January of 1984. The City Manager added that the resident had cooperated with the City for many years, but has not most recently. Mayor Nyquist noted the hedge is planted in a diagonal direction not for beauty's sake. Councilmember Lhotka requested that if this type of item arises again it should not be placed on the Consent Agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -122 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITION OF REAL ESTATE EXISTING AT 5800 DREW AVENUE NORTH IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1985 -21, Approving Specifications, and Ordering Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -L). He stated this item calls for replacing the fuel tanks at the Municipal Service Garage with those removed from the 7- Eleven site and installing new dispensers. Councilmember is 7 -8 -85 -4- Lhotka asked if there would be a monitoring system for each tank, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Lhotka noted that in the report before him the number of repairs listed were for 1984, and he asked what the past history of repairs has been. The City Manager stated that 1984 was a representative year for number of repairs. Councilmember Hawes inquired if all City vehicles would be fed from this system, and the City Manager responded affirmatively, adding that the Brooklyn Center school buses and also some special vehicles from MTC would be using these pumps. Councilmember Theis asked if the funding for this project is from Capital Improvement Project monies, and the City Manager stated it is. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -123 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -21, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIAS (CONTRACT 1985 -L) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Project No. 1985 -16, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Carpet Replacement in the Civic Center (Contract 1985 -I) Councilmember Hawes asked if the Civic Center represented both City Hall and the Community Center. The City Manager responded affirmatively, stating the upper level of City Hall and parts of the Community Center are included in the replacement' of carpeting, and adding that this project does not include total replacement of all carpeting in the Civic Center. Councilmember Hawes asked what the five alternatives under the Carpet Center, Inc. bid included, and Mr. Bob Pierce, an architect representing Lindberg, Pierce Company stated the alternatives were from various carpet manufacturers priced and submitted by one company. Councilmember Hawes asked d fan thought ght had been given to the alternative . of using carpet squares, and Mr. Pierce responded saying it was not considered in this case because of the expense, but added that it is a good alternative if some areas are more heavily trafficked than others. Councilmember Hawes asked if carpet squares is a good alternative in the long run, and Mr. Pierce stated it would be too expensive. Councilmember Hawes noted the downtown skyways are carpeted with squares allowing easy replacement. Mr. Pierce noted the carpeting is replaced every 'three to four years in the skyways because of the heavy traffic, and said regular carpeting averages approximately $17 per square yard while the cost of carpet squares is approximately $24 per square yard. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table this resolution to the next City Council meeting. Councilmember Hawes inquired why this item should be tabled, and Councilmember Lhotka responded saying he was notified by a firm that wanted to bid on the project and was told they could not do so. He requested the City to investigate the complaint. The City Manager asked how much time is left to reject bids, and Mir. Pierce stated two weeks. Councilmember Lhotka requested an attempt be made to extend the bids if necessary, and requested a copy of the bid specifications. 7 -8 -85 -5- Upon vote being taken on the motion to table this item, all members voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Theis asked if any provision for surplus carpeting for repairs had been made, and the City Manager responded affirmatively, The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Project No. 1985 - 17, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Painting in the Civic Center and at the Municipal Service Garage (Contract 1985 -J). Councilmember Hawes asked if the Civic Center referred to both City Hall and the Community Center, and the City Manager stated it did and some parts of both these facilities would be corrected. Councilmember Hawes noted that in the third line of item two on page two of the resolution the dollar amount should be $4,250, and not $4,240. RESOLUTION N0. 85 -124 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the correction of the dollar amount on page two of the resolution: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -J (PAINTING IN THE CIVIC CENTER AND AT THE MUNICIPAL GARAGE, PROJECT NO. 1985- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement between Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center for an Employee Assistance Program. Councilmember Hawes inquired if the program is worth continuing, and the City Manager said it is. He added the alternative is to train someone on staff for this, which would be very expensive. He noted the confidential screening provides a very valuable service t h o the City, and other communities participate in similar Y� P p programs. Councilmember Theis stated several employees from his place of business have used a similar program, and he feels the program has been very worthwhile. Councilmember Hawes asked if the program is all inclusive for employees, both union and nonunion members, and the City Manager stated all employees are eligible. RESOLUTION NO. 85-125 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN METROPOLITAN CLINIC OF COUNSELING, INC. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 -8 -85 -6- PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The Housing Coordinator briefly reviewed the "proposed development plan for acquisition of the Earle Brown Farm property and recommended the Council not take any action this evening relative to the public hearing because of the need to prepare additional information and clarification of this project. Councilmember Scott asked at what stage the City is at for signing an agreement for acquiring the property, and the Housing Coordinator responded a Purchase Agreement has been drafted and Mr. Gustafson's attorney is reviewing it. Councilmember Hawes asked if liens against the property will be paid off, and the Housing Coordinator stated the Purchasing Agreement says all mortgages must be paid. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Establishment of a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Marie Castle, 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, Apt. 1108, who said she read about the possible purchase in the newspaper and is concerned about the possible rental housing project. She would like the property to be maintained as it is without tearing down any buildings. She added as a taxpayer she would not mind if the farm were given to a farm family to maintain. Mayor Nyquist told Ms. Castle that an ad hoc committee is reviewing options for the property, including preservation. The City Manager added rental housing may be constructed adjacent to the farm buildings and the intent is to preserve the buildings. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to continue the public hearing on the Establishment of a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District to 7:30 p.m. on July 22, 1985. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT CONDOMINIUMS — OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BOND ON BROOKWOOD The Housing Coordinator reviewed the Resolution Adopting a Housing Bond Program for the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds for the Brookwood Estates Project and Authorizing Submission of Same to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Metropolitan Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums. Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the status of rental of the condominium units. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wally Johnson of Brutger Companies, Inc. who stated they have purchased six units and there are two owners who are not interested in selling their units at this time. Councilmember Lhotka asked how many units are currently rented in the rental area, and Mr. Johnson stated approximately 19 units have been rented. Councilmember Lhotka questioned the marketing strategies used by Brutger Companies, Inc. for both the condominiums and the rental units, and Mr. Johnson stated advertising has been published both in the Brooklyn Center Post and in the Minneapolis Star & Tribune newspapers, and currently Brutger Companies, Inc. is in the process of hiring a property management firm. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the hours are to view the apartments, and Mr. Johnson stated a full -time resident manager is available every day. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the two owners retaining their property in the condominiums have submitted anything in writing. Mr. Johnson noted the two owners are very willing to stay in the building as owners, and are happy with both 7 -8 -85 -7- management and maintenance. He added Brutger Companies, Inc. have this in writing from one of the owner's attorney. Councilmember Theis asked if the offer to purchase units from the last two owners was consistent with the other offers, or if they were higher. Mr. Johnson stated the last two owners were offered similar settlements to the other six owners, but the counter offers received were _ substantially higher than the others. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Jay Cook of Dorsey & Whitney who stated the last two owners were requesting an additional 30% to 40% amount over the rental concessions and as a total package were asking for between 50% and 60% more than each of the other six owners had received. Mayor Nyquist asked if the remaining two owners are under the impression that the City is not going to bail them out, and the Housing Coordinator stated this has been made very clear to them. Mayor Nyquist noted he prefers to see something in writing showing the decision to stay as owners is that of the owners. The City Manager said City staff will contact the owners. Mr. Cook stated the owners have made the decision to own and prefer to continue as owners. Councilmember Lhotka asked how the City can protect itself, and the City Attorney asked what the City wishes to be protected from. Councilmember Lhotka expressed concern that the two owners will return at some future date with some request. The City Attorney stated the City is assisting with the financing of the project, and even if the two stay as owners, he does not see what threat there is to the City. Mayor Nyquist stated if the two owners are depending on the City to bring additional pressure for settlement, the owners should not rely on this assumption. The City Attorney stated this should be communicated to the owners and the City Manager stated this could be done between now and August 1, 1985. Councilmember Theis stated he wished the owners to be aware of the option allowing a last chance for them to settle, and also requested staff to make contact with the owners. Councilmember Lhotka asked how close Brutger Companies, Inc. is to selecting a management firm, and Mr. Johnson stated Brutger Companies, Inc. is presently dealing with two firms. Councilmember Lhotka requested information on this at the next meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to continue the public hearing on Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums to 7:30 p.m. on July 22, 1985. Councilmember Hawes asked if the owners continue to own if they would be able to rent out their units to anyone they so desired, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Hawes asked how many bedrooms are in each unit, and the Housing Coordinator stated both owned units have two bedrooms each. Councilmember Hawes asked if the owners could rent to a family, and the Housing Coordinator responded affirmatively. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Housing Coordinator and the Finance Director left the Council Chambers at 8:17 p.m. ORDINANCE The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North 7 -8 -85 -8- as Platted within the Hellsted Addition. He explained this ordinance was first read on June 10, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on June 20, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. - He stated this ordinance provides for vacation of a platted, but never developed 30' wide street right -of -way, i.e. Irving Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to its dead end approximately 490' south of 69th Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North as Platted within the Hellsted Addition. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Irving Avenue North as Platted within the Hellsted Addition. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis._ Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 -12 embFI er Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF IRVING AVENUE NORTH AS PLATTED WITHIN THE HELLSTED ADDITION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council - recessed at 8:19 p.m. and reconvened at 8:33 P.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICAT NO. 85016 SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE PROPERTIES FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 3 00 OF THE ZONING ORDINANC The City Manager explained this application would allow temporary 1 setback off Highway 252 right -of -way and would allow a density variance of two units at the Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 -7224 Camden Avenue North. He stated the City Council tabled the application and continued the public hearing on June 24, 1985• The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the history of this application including the location of the current buildings, the description of the original application and the conditions recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their June 13, 1985 meeting, information presented at the June 24, -1985 City Council meeting, and changes affected by the Minnesota Department of Transportation j proposals. He added Planning Commission Application No. 85016 was tabled by the City Council at their June 24, 1985 meeting. He stated the Planning Commission, at their June 27, 1985 meeting, expressed concern with a 40' setback from a 6' wall, and felt it did not meet the intent of City ordinance relating to setbacks. He added the Planning Commission felt the noise wall should be at least 12' in height for a 40' setback. The Housing Coordinator re- entered the Council Chambers at 8:52 p.m. 7 -8 -85 -9- The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the Minnesota Department of Transportation does not wish to install a noise wall, but prefers landscaped berms instead. He added it has been the City's preference in the past to choose berms rather than the noise walls. He explained that for a temporary variance, the issues remain the same regardless of what the MN /DOT'S action will be. If a wall is constructed, a standard setback should be determined. Councilmember Lhotka asked if it would be possible to proceed with the second proposal if landscaped berms are constructed, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated more land is necessary to construct berms. Councilmember Lhotka asked if it would be possible to construct a berm on private property and add a fence to that property. The Director of Planning & Inspection responded this is a possibility. The Housing Coordinator left the Council Chambers at 9:07 p.m. Councilmember Theis inquired as to what would become of the property on the east side of T.H. 252, and wondered if a noise wall on the west side would make it noisier for those on the east side of T.H. 252. The City Manager stated a duplex is on the east side of T. H. 252, and noted a landscaped berm would be constructed on the east side. Councilmember Scott stated she would prefer a berm over a noise wall any day based on her experience. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ken Solie of Village Properties who stated in the two story buildings, the second story would be noisier. According to Mr. Solie, Village Properties intends to extend the wings on the east end of the building to deter the noise. Councilmember Hawes asked if there are any openings on the east end of the building in question, and Mr. Solie responded there are not. The Housing Coordinator returned to the City Council Chambers at 9:08 p.m. Councilmember Theis asked if a landscaped berm and a fence is installed, and half of the berm is on private property, what the maximum number of units would be before a variance is needed. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated it would be necessary to review a plan prior to answering this question. He restated the concern expressed by the Planning Commission of whether or not the intent of the ordinance is met for a noise wall for a 40' setback. Councilmember Hawes inquired as to the setback requirements of the side, rear and front of the 7206 Camden Avenue North building. The Director of Planning & Inspection responded that a 50' setback is required by ordinance but the City Council can utilize a lesser setback. Mayor Nyquist continued the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85016. He inquired if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application No. 85016. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 85016 with authorization for a 12 combination of landscaped 7 -8 -85 -10- berm and noise wall for a 40' setback, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship created by the highway taking and the public interest in preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of the owner's financial interests alone. 2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the repurchase rights to any excess right -of -way to the east of the Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation of the 7212 building. 3• The applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of permits for building relocation, a letter from MN /DOT - acknowledging -that there is adequate excess right -of -way and /or potential mitigating improvements in the future to provide for required ordinance setbacks. 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan application for the property with new building and parking locations and any other site modifications comprehended, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation and reconstruction. 5• In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed" by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant shall acquire the excess right -of -way immediately to the east of the apartment complex and maintain the area in a manner consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will acquire excess right -of -way from the MN /DOT and shall combine this property to the Evergreen Apartment complex through platting or registered land survey. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to issuance of permits for relocation or remodeling. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: Rich Theis. The motion carried. The Director of Planning & Inspection left the Council Chambers at 9:18 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABL ISHMENT OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BOND ON BROOKWOOD CONDOMINIUMS - (CONTINUED The City Manager stated there is additional information on Brookwood condominiums to be added to the record. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to reopen the public hearing on Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on 7 -8 -85 -11- Brookwood Condominiums. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Jay Cook of Dorsey & Whitney who explained that Brutger Companies, Inc. wished the City Council to understand the agreements reached with the six former condominium owners, and explained the details of the agreement. He also reviewed a letter received from an attorney representing one of the current' owners of a condominium unit. Mr. Cook stated the terms proposed by the attorney were unacceptable to Brutger, and the client would continue to own the unit. Mr. Cook reviewed the request from the other condominium owner and stated the client will continue ownership of the unit. He stated Brutger feels they have exhausted every possibility for settlement at this time. He explained Brutger is interested in gaining the City's approval in order to appear before the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, and requests the City Council to reconsider and approve the resolution before them. . Councilmember Lhotka stated he is still concerned for reasons stated earlier and would not vote on this item this evening. Mr. Wally Johnson of Brutger stated passage of the resolution is necessary to receive approval of the housing plan. He added they are on a tight time table and pointed out that none of the owners are present at the public hearing. Councilmember Lhotka stated it was his interpretation that even if the resolution is delayed by two weeks, Brutger will still be able -to meet their timetable. Mr. Johnson stated the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency requires a ten -day notice to be placed on their agenda, and the Agency meets just once per month. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to how the residents will be notified, and the Housing Coordinator stated they could be contacted by phone. The City Manager stated it may be possible to grant preliminary approval, and the City Attorney stated there should be some concern about the variance between the real facts and those presented this evening. Councilmember Lhotka left the Council Chambers at 9:39 p.m. and returned at 9:41 P.m. Councilmember Theis expressed concern over the motives of the residents who had written letters stating their counter proposals for settlement. Mayor Nyquist stated assuming the letters are legitimate, it is still important to know the residents understand the City will take no further action on the matter. Councilmember Scott requested phone calls be made to the residents with follow -up letters which would provide proof of notification. Mr. Cook stated the residents are aware of the current circumstances and he would object to the City _taking any special action for them. Mr. Johnson asked for some direction from the City Council, inquiring what the expected result of a notification letter to the residents would be. Councilmember Lhotka stated Brutger Companies, Inc. is not required to do anything additional, but the City wants the two residents to be aware that the units around them are rental units and the City is not attempting to reopen negotiations. Mayor Nyquist inquired as to whether or not the residents were formally notified of the public hearing this evening, and the Housing Coordinator stated they were not. Councilmember Theis asked if it would be possible to adopt the resolution on the condition that the facts are correct. The City Attorney pointed out that staff could add a clause stating additional information must be verified, and if the facts 7 -8 -85 -12- come back showing residents have relied on the City, the resolution would be made void. A final decision to use or reject the clause could come at the July 22, 1985 City Council meeting. Mir. Cook stated he preferred not to see any special condition set. Mayor Nyquist stated he did not wish to receive any phone calls from individuals stating they thought the City would not approve anything until all condominium units were sold. Councilmember Theis stated the meeting on July 22, 1985 could be used to reverse the resolution if necessary. Councilmember Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:' RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Councilmember Scott included the condition that the resolution would become void if the information presented by Brutger Companies, Inc. this evening, was found to be false. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes. The City Attorney stated it is not a good practice to alter a proposed resolution when dealing with the sale of bonds. He recommended the City Council either adopt the original resolution and the two owners must live with the results or wait two weeks until sufficient information is received and Brutger Companies, Inc. would have to accept the delay. Councilmember Scott withdrew her resolution and Councilmember Hawes did not object. Councilmember Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Councilmember Theis wondered if the only other opportunity to discontinue the process would be at the time of a final resolution which the City Council would probably have difficulty not passing. The City Attorney stated much will depend on the facts of the situation, including to what extent the developers had been led to rely on the first approval. Mr. Johnson stated Brutger has been bargaining in good faith. Mayor Nyquist inquired if anyone wished to second the motion for the adoption of the resolution, and upon finding no one to do so stated the motion died for a lack of a second. Councilmember Theis suggested the City Council meet again prior to the July 22, 1985 City Council meeting on an evening early enough to allow Brutger to proceed and also to receive assurance from the residents that the facts presented are correct. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to continue the public hearing on Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums to July 11, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Housing Coordinator stated he would contact the residents and inform them of this meeting. 7 -8 -85 -13- CONDITIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT OF HENRY (BO) SPURRIER FOR THE POSITION OF CITY ENGINEER The City Manager stated it would be necessary for the City Council to approve special conditions for employment of Mr. Bo Spurrier for the position of City Engineer. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to allow Mr. Henry Spurrier three weeks vacation accrual for his first five years of employment with the City and then according to the personnel ordinance, and 100 hour block of sick leave, which can be used in the first year but must be earned according to the City plan before additional hours accrue. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 7 -8 -85 -14- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION JULY 11, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in special session and was called to order by President Pro tem Celia Scott at 7:09 p.m. ROLL CALL President Pro tem Celia Scott, Councilmembers Lhotka, Hawes, and Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. RESOLUTION The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Project No. 1985 -16, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Carpet Replacement in the Civic Center (Contract 1985 -I). Councilmember Lhotka stated he contacted the original complainant, and informed the City Council that the complaint had been withdrawn. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -126 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -I (CARPET REPLACEMENT IN THE CIVIC CENTER, PROJECT NO. 1985 -16) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager reported that the City had received approval from HUD for $680,000 for the purchase of the Earle Brown Farm property. He informed the Council that the Ramada Inn has received final confirmation on their project, curb work has begun on Lyndale Avenue North, and Target is conducting soil preparation for the new Target store and shopping center. Councilmember Theis inquired about the water table at the Target location, and the City Manager stated it is very high. PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BOND ON BROOKWOOD CONDOM - — - _ Tie City Manager stated the public hearing on the Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums is continued from the July 8, 1985 City Council meeting. He noted if the City Council adopts the resolution before them on this issue, it will be difficult to retract at a future date. President Pro tem Scott continued the public hearing on the Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums. The City Manager stated Brookwood residents were contacted both by phone and letter 7 -11 -85 -1- regarding this evening's meeting. President Pro tem Scott asked those residents present to identify themselves, and those present included Walter and Stella Kaluznick, 6201 North Lilac Drive,, Apt. No. 504, and Mrs. Bea Bell, 6201 North Lilac Drive, Apt. No. 211. President Pro tem Scott recognized Mr. Kaluznick who stated before the City approves anything, he recommends that the City investigate Brutger Companies, Inc., as Brutger has promised a lot and has not always followed through on their promises. Mayor Dean Nyquist entered the meeting at 7:16 p.m. and assumed leadership of the meeting. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Kaluznick to note specific promises made by Brutger. Mr. Kaluznick stated sport's equipment was to be installed and never was; the Whirlpool is not being taken care of and it is dirty; trash is around the vehicle area; water leaks above the hot water tank which has never been fixed; the water smells rotten; and the upkeep of grounds is not good. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Bell who stated she would keep her unit but has some fears regarding care of the lawn. She complained about the service of the garage doors, the security system, and the fact that some tenants use any garage spaces they desire. She expressed concern over whether Brutger would continue with poor care of the facility and is apprehensive about ever being able to sell her unit if the facility does deteriorate. She also stated her concern for her rights as an owner and her fear that the Association fee would be increased to a very high level. Mrs. Bell said she likes her home and would like to stay there, but has concern about maintenance problems not being corrected. Finally, she stated she is willing to sell at the amount it cost her to make the move she did. Mayor Nyquist asked if those who have complained to these residents have talked to Brutger Companies, Inc., and Mrs. Bell said some residents have. Fir. Kaluznick added some complaints are at least one year old. Mayor Nyquist stated he was a bit confused about the message he was receiving from the residents when compared to the letters from their attorneys which show satisfaction with the facility. Mr. Kaluznick stated he and his wife are happy but recommended the City check out Brutger Companies, Inc. Councilmember Lhotka asked for a response from representatives of Brutger Companies, Inca Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wally Johnson, representing Brutger Companies, Inc., who stated his company is aware of a high water table in the basement and a few problems with water leaking in the balcony areas. Mr. Johnson stated Brutger Companies, Inc. was in the process of installing laundry equipment when told by the City of Brooklyn Center that air dampers are necessary, and this caused an additional delay. Mr. Johnson noted the condition of the grounds at the Brookwood project is better than other places in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the problems encountered with the garage doors, and Mr. Johnson responded that Brutger Companies, Inc. has been aware of problems and makes repairs as soon as a problem is reported. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Kaluznick who stated problems go on for weeks at a time and asked why it takes an entire year to get a ceiling leak repaired. He noted that everyone seems to pass the buck. 7 -11 -85 -2- t The City Manager stated the City will have a Building Inspector check compliance of the City's maintenance code at Brookwood condominiums during the following week. Councilmember Lhotka made the statement that if Brutger Companies, Inc. did not know about, the problem they have, it is an example of shabby management. Mr. Johnson of Brutger Companies, Inc. stated he was not responsible for construction of the building and was not aware of the roof leaks. Mr. Kaluznick said he has talked with the resident manager at Brookwood condominiums nearly everyday and the resident manager has said she passes the information onto management. Councilmember Lhotka asked Mr. Kaluznick to speak with the resident manager and find out who she passes her information to at the Brutger Companies, Inc. Councilmember Theis asked who is responsible in the Brutger Companies, Inc. organization to remedy problems such as those discussed this evening, and Mr. Johnson of Brutger Companies, Inc. responded he is that responsible person. Councilmember Theis asked if a roofer were sent out to Brookwood condominiums, then Mr. Johnson would have been the person sending that roofer out, and Mr. Johnson stated someone in his department would have done so. Councilmember Lhotka stated a notice was sent to residents in approximately March of 1985 telling them about certain services that would be available at Brookwood condominiums, and he asked if those are now available. Mr. Kaluznick said they are not available. Mr. Johnson stated that Brutger Companies, Inc. is attempting to hire a professional management company to advise Brutger Companies, Inc. of what is needed, but such a company has not yet been hired. Mr. Johnson added that Brutger Companies, Inc.. has done a lotto the building at the request of the tenants and the intent remains to improve the facility. However, Brutger Companies, Inc. does not wish to make an error in purchasing equipment or services that will not be used and as a result, a management company will be hired by Brutger Companies, Inc. The City Manager asked what the expected date is for hiring the management firm, and Mr. Johnson replied the goal is September 1, 1985. Councilmember Hawes asked about the problems related to the whirlpool. Mr. Kaluznick stated the whirlpool is dirty and it always seems to be broken. ` The City Manager noted the Health Department has informed him that this is a universal problem with whirlpools. Mr. Johnson addressed the issue of the rotten egg smell of the water, saying the smell has to do with the degree of occupancy in the units at the present time, and the smell will disappear when full occupancy is reached. Councilmember Theis referenced the problems expressed by residents, noting that many of these problems may have been avoided with good management. He asked for some assurance that the problems stated would be rectified, and Mayor Nyquist asked to have someone assigned who has the authority to accomplish the tasks at hand. Mr. Johnson stated he would see to the repair problems personally. Councilmember Lhotka stated he is looking for some assurance that the problems will be cleared up before this fall when a management company is hired. Councilmember Theis asked how many of the complaints could be dealt with before the next City Council meeting on July 22, 1985• Mr. Johnson of Brutger Companies, Inca responded saying they are currently dealing with the sprinkling' system; the whirlpool will be professionally serviced in the following week; the water leak in the roof will be inspected; the trash problem will be investigated; Brutger Companies, Inc. will work with the City in dealing with the foul water smell; and the garage doors and security system will be checked. Councilmember Theis asked that a report be presented at the next City Council meeting in reference to the status of 7 -11 -85 -3- the specific problems and Mr. Johnson stated this would be done. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Johnson if he did not communicate with his resident manager, and Mr. Johnson stated he was aware of some problems, but heard of no specific complaints related to maintenance. Councilmember Scott remarked that Brookwood is a nice building with nice tenants, but wondered why Brutger Companies, Y g A , Inc. did not know about a leaky roof for one year. Mr. Johnson stated he was not, aware that a problem existed.- Councilmember Scott asked if a management company would have the same communication problem as that now experienced, and Mr. Johnson stated Brutger Companies, Inc. has tried to attend to maintenance problems immediately. Mr. Kaluznick said se a ver 1 eo e have ave come in and looked a t th P A e leaking ceiling, but nothing has ever been done about it. Councilmember Hawes asked what the association fee would be for the two owners who keep their units, and Mr. Jay Cook of Dorsey & Whitney stated Brutger Companies, Inc. will assess each of the units 1/73 of the total cost. Mayor Nyquist noted that Brutger er Com anies Inc. g Companies, would pay 71/73 of the cost. Mayor Nyquist asked that the residents at Brookwood condominiums prepare a list of complaints, present this list to City staff, and a report be presented from the City and Brutger Companies, Inc. at the next City Council meeting. Mrs. Bell asked if the Brookwood condominiums would remain as a senior citizen residence, and Mayor Nyquist responded that there is no absolute assurance for this. The Housing Coordinator noted the plan is for anyone under 54 to be excluded from living in these units, and in the case of a married couple, only one of the residents must be 54 years or older. Mr. Johnson added that the caretakers are also excluded from the age restriction. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else resent who wished to speak at th Y A p e public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. . P g There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Establishment of a Multifamily Housing Bond on Brookwood Condominiums. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion pased unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -127 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOUSING BOND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Councilmember Lhotka specified that the resolution would be contingent upon the signing of Amendment No. 2 to the contract for private redevelopment with Brutger Companies, Inc. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to . 7 -11 -85 -4- adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 7:58 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 7 -11 -85 -5- V MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF _HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 22, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn - Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:32 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, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. 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, and no requests were made. PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASE FOR BASSWOOD APARTMENTS There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to release the performance guarantee in the amount of $1,500 for Basswood Apartments, 4450 58th Avenue North (Planning Commission Application No. 83033)• Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -128 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -H (SEALCOAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -15) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -129 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1985 -K (DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 - . 13 & 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14) 7 -22 -85 -1- iA The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -130 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR LANDSCAPING ON WINGARD LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -131 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER PROJECT NO. 1985 -18 (BITUMINOUS TRAIL CONSTRUCTION AT WEST PALMER LAKE PARK) - The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and RESOLUTION NO. 85 -132 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -I (CONSTRUCTION OF WELL PUMPHOUSE #4, SOCCER FIELD LIGHTING, LANDSCAPE .AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT EVERGREEN FIELD) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -133 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING HENRY R. (BO) SPURRIER AS ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared • duly passed and adopted. 7 -22 -85 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 85 -134 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPOINTING HENRY R. (BO) SPURRIER AS ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO THE WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Bakeis,Square 5601 Xerxes Ave. N. Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle Northwest Residence 4408 69th Ave. N. GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Brooklyn Disposal, Inc. 7858 191st Ln NW Browning Ferris Industries 9813 Flying Cloud Dr. Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 91st Ave. NE ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE St. Alphonsus Fun Fair 7025 Halifax Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Earle Brown Farm Apts. Part. Earle Brown Farm Apts. Savage II The Ponds Townhouses John Tschohl 5412 Colfax Ave. N. Logan & Jean Beisner 2808 67th Ln. Renewal: Norman Chazin Brookdale Manor Apts. Norman Chazin Northbrook Terrace Apts. Irvin & Ruth Schloff 4819 Azelia Ave. N. H. Oien, E. Sullivan 5809 Brooklyn Blvd. Norman Chazin 6037 Brooklyn Blvd. Stone Investments 5500 Bryant Ave. N. Donald L. Parkin 5624 Camden Ave. N. Michael L. Goodwin 5134 Ewing Ave. N. Jon Lindman 1600 Irving Lane Marcus Corporation 6415 James Circle Amos Levang 4100 Lakebreeze Ave. N. LeRay & Keith Mortensen 4110 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Randy Elam 4200 Lakebreeze Ave. N. James & Shirley Anderson 4204 Lakebreeze Ave. N. 7 -22 -85 -3- James & Bobbie Simons 4210 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Norbert & Dolores Volbert 4207 Lakeside Ave. #122 Logan North Properties 5800 Logan Ave. N. Logan North Properties 5820 Logan Ave. N. Logan North Properties 5830 Logan Ave. N. Norwest Bank Mpls. 7002 Quail Circle W. J. Haugen, S. Haugen 4806 Twin Lake Ave. William Pucel 6908 -12 Unity Ave. N. Agnes Janssen 1425 55th Ave. N. Jacob & Bonita Heinonen 1107 57th Ave. N. Edward Doll 1201 57th Ave. N. Outreach Group Homes, Inc. 507 69th Ave. N. Dennis & Karen Peterson 4811 69th Ave. N. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Fun Services 3701 50th Ave. N. TAXICAB LICENSE Blue & White Cab Co. 2404 Sheridan Ave. N. TEMPORARY ON -SALE BEER LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 1316 68th Ln. St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager requested the Resolution Seeking Authorization for a Condemnation of Atkin's Mechanical Property be tabled until the next City Council meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to table a Resolution Seeking Authorization for a Condemnation of Atkin's Mechanical Property until the August 12, 1985 City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 on Filing for Municipal Office. He explained the ordinance was first read on June 24, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on July 4, 1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. This ordinance is a result of a new state law requiring the preparation and delivery of absentee ballots at least 30 days before an election, and requiring filing of affidavits of candidates not less than six weeks nor more than eight weeks before a municipal primary and at least eighteen weeks before the general election. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 on Filing for Municipal Office. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist noted that no one requested to speak at the public hearing and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 7 -22 -85 -4- ORDINANCE NO. 85 -13 Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE FILING FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene yq , Ge Lhotka, Celia Scott., Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT The City Manager stated the results of this public hearing would be a Resolution Establishing a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District. Mayor Nyquist referred to Section 3.02b of the resolution and asked on what basis the buildings are determined to be 20% structurally substandard. The Housing Coordinator stated this is based on the number of buildings versus the number of parcels regardless of size. Councilmember Lhotka asked for a clarification of Section 4.03 of the resolution, and the Housing Coordinator explained the geographic boundaries of the project area and the Tax Increment Financing District are the same. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the Establishment of a Redevelopment Project and a Tax Increment Financing District. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -135 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR THE EARLE BROWN FARM, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: ESTABLISHING A REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; ESTABLISHING A REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEM STAFF REPORT - BROOKWOOD CONDOMINIUMS Councilmember .Theis questioned the status of the garage door openers, and the Housing Coordinator stated that personnel were working to resolve the problem when he was at the site, and there is something definitely wrong with the system. Mayor Nyquist asked if reasonable efforts were made to resolve the problem, and the 7 -22 -85 -5- Housing Coordinator stated that such efforts have been made. Councilmember Lhotka asked about the condition of the shrubbery, and the Housing Coordinator said he did not see much evidence of dead shrubbery. Councilmember Scott asked if a name or a phone number is available for residents to contact in emergency situations. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wally Johnson of Brutger Companies, Inc. who stated the company has interviewed a caretaker couple who will be available on a 24 hour basis. Councilmember Scott asked what residents are to do in the mean time until the caretaker couple moves into the residence, and Mr. Johnson stated residents should dial 911 for immediate emergencies, and building emergencies will be dealt with during business hours. Councilmember Scott stated a lot of damage could occur if residents waited until morning to report problems, and it would be best if residents could have a contact to call. Mr. Johnson of Brutger Companies, Inc. stated as a short term resolution he would post the phone numbers of several office people, and Councilmember Scott responded saying this is an acceptable solution. Mayor Nyquist asked if the two owners of the condominium units received copies of the report, and the Housing Coordinator stated he would deliver copies to the residents. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:48 p.m. and reconvened at 8:04 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85009 SUBMITTED BY FOUNDATION STONE M INISTRIES, INC. FOR OF TM 4 . A C S_ ' S0 OF T AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD FROM R5 TO C1 The City Manager stated this application was considered by the Planning Commission at its May 9, 1985 was tabled and referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment, and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its July 11, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the application from Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. and the minutes of the Planning Commission from May 9, 1985 and July 11, 1985 • He reviewed the location and area of the property, and stated the applicant is seeking rezoning for the purpose of building a church. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the past history of the property and noted that currently churches are not allowed in areas zoned as R5. He added that a C1 zoning district would be compatable with the City's Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the results of the neighborhood meeting and the resolution before the City Council this evening. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted the Planning Commission also recommended a change in the zoning ordinance if the resolution is passed. Mayor Nyquist asked if it would be possible to designate this property as a special use in a R5 district, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated this is a possibility. Councilmember Hawes asked if the property could be downgraded to R1 and the church would be a special use, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated this would be inconsistent with the City's plans. Councilmember Hawes asked if the property is zoned as C1 and a church is not built, whether or not the property would be open to C1 uses. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that C1 zoning is not inconsistent with the City's plan and office uses would be permitted. Councilmember Hawes stated he agreed with the idea of a turn lane, but noted traffic traveling eastbound on I -94 to southbound Brooklyn Boulevard would have difficulty 7 -22 -85 -6- crossing over lanes if another lane is added. The Director of Planning& Inspection noted that the proposal includes lengthening of a turn lane and not the addition of another lane. The Director of Public Works added that the proposal is for a protected turn lane, noting the acceleration lane off of I =94 to Brooklyn Boulevard would taper off before the new turn lane starts and traffic would have to move to the through lane prior to entering the turn lane to the property. The City Manager stated no matter what the use is on this property, there will be some traffic problems. Councilmember Hawes wondered if the property in question and those three lots south of the property are rezoned to either R1 or R2, if there would be a problem with the covenant. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the private covenant is exercised by the property owners. Councilmember Hawes asked if there would be room for a U -turn for those vehicles traveling northbound on Brooklyn Boulevard and taking the turn lane to go west off of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated this A i would be A ossible because signalized intersections allow U- turns. Councilmember Hawes felt this will create a real problem, and the Director of Planning & Inspection noted that a church use will provide for off peak traffic generation on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings, while adding an office use would create peak traffic during heavy traffic hours. Councilmember Hawes asked if an acceleration lane would be constructed for vehicles leaving the site and traveling southbound on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Public Works stated there is not enough room for this proposal. Councilmember Theis questioned the use of the land compared to the existing covenant and asked if approval would be needed from the City Council for the three parcels south of the property under consideration. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated this would require rezoning at a future date. Councilmember Theis expressed concern over the use of residential streets for activity related to a church. He asked how large a site the proposed plan is compared to other churches in the community, especially those where 50% of the traffic generated by a church is routed onto residential streets. He also asked for an estimate of the number of trips on a Sunday morning into this site. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted the latest proposal includes congregational membership of approximately 500 people with an estimated growth to 800 members. He added there will be two Sunday services as well as Wednesday evening services, and parking capacity allows for one vehicle for each of three seats in the church. Councilmember Theis noted this would approximate 167 vehicles. He asked where most of the parishioners of the church currently live, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated the current church is located in the Camden area of Minneapolis, with parishioners living in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, New Hope, and the Crystal area. Councilmember Theis noted if services are full with 167 vehicles parked in the lot, it may be possible for 83 of the vehicles to travel in from the south and 83 to travel from the north which may result in approximately 83 U -turns at the north ramp. The Director of Public Works noted that residents coming from the Camden and New Hope areas would probably travel on I -94. Councilmember Theis concluded that less than 50% of the vehicles would make U- turns. He asked what time the services are scheduled for, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that Sunday services are at 10:00 a.m.:and 7:00 p.m., while Wednesday evening will include a prayer service. Councilmember Lhotka_expressed concern that vehicles waiting to make U -turns at the intersection would stack up prior to the services. He asked what the current tax is on the parcel addressed in the application and the amount of the tax exemption if the 7 -22 -85 -7- church is built. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated he did not know the answer to these questions but will investigate them. The City Manager noted that approximately two years ago the Metropolitan Council conducted a study on the amount of tax exempt property in communities, and Brooklyn Center was near the bottom of this list. Councilmember Hawes asked if the rezoning proposal affects only the property being sold or also the three parcels of land south of the property. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that only the property being sold at this time is addressed here. Mayor Nyquist asked if the three lots are sold if they would be large enough to build apartment buildings on them, and the Director of Planning & Inspection stated this is possible. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85009• He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Charles Gustafson, 3801 66th Avenue North, who stated he was in favor of the past plan to build offices on this property, but he is not in favor of building a church. He added two of the four properties on Brooklyn Boulevard are for sale but the owners cannot sell them at this time. He said the owners would like to see the area become commercial uses, because if a church is built it will be impossible to sell homes in the area. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Audrey Henche, 4201 66th Avenue North, who said she can see the traffic from the freeway ramp and there are two to three accidents a month. She stated that in her opinion, building a church will create traffic problems. Ms. Henche added she was almost hit several days ago when a car coming off the ramp did not turn its turn signal off. Mayor Nyquist asked if the problem would be occurring only with the church and asked if Ms. Henche would like to see another use on the property. Ms. Henche stated she prefers to see the lot remain vacant. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Pat Johnson, 4207 66th Avenue North, who stated there will be no place for people to park if a church is located on the lot. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Carol Behne, 6530 Indiana Avenue North, who stated there would be a big problem if access from the church is made to Indiana Avenue North. She said she has three small children and she fears the dangerous conditions of the increased traffic. She added the traffic flow would increase in the future if membership grows and noted that now she can see traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard which is heavy even on Sunday evenings. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table Application No. 85009 submitted by Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. to the August 12, 1985 City Council meeting, at which time the Mayor and City Council will have received information on the property tax of the property as well as a police report with the traffic counts and accident history on Brooklyn Boulevard and the surrounding area. 7 -22 -85 -8- Mayor Nyquist asked if the delay would be detrimental to the applicant, and he recognized Mark Anderson, representing Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc., who stated he is following a tight time frame. Mr. Anderson asked what difference it would make having traffic counts, and suggested that the median on Brooklyn Boulevard not be extended to prohibit U- turns. Councilmember Theis asked for additional information on the 7:00 p.m. Sunday service, and Mr. Anderson stated it would be a small prayer service. Councilmember Theis stated he is concerned about eliminating the median to allow left turn traffic into the property, especially with the traffic exiting the freeway onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Upon vote being taken on the motion to table Application No. 85009, the following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Nyquist, i Y Yq , Counc lmembers Lhotka Scott Hawes and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertising vert's' i i for Bids for Two Civil Defense Sirens. He stated the specifications are in order according to the implementation of the lan previously a City Council. A P Y pproved by the RESOLUTION NO. 85 -136 Member Ce lia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) CIVIL DEFENSE SIRENS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution was. declared P duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION Council-member Hawes asked about the status of the Solar Project, and the City Manager stated the Housing g sing Commission is expected to have a report within the next six months. The City Manager added that the City has not received any complaints other than those related to the contractor cleaning the sites after their construction was completed. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:05 P.M. Deputy City Clerk Mayor 7 -22 -85 -9- Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING INSPECTION REPORT ON HI CREST SQUARE ESTATES AND DIRECTING STAFF TO COMPLETE WORK WITH FUNDS GUARANTEED UNDER LETTER OF CREDIT FROM CAMDEN NORTHWESTERN BANK WHEREAS, Application No. 82023 submitted by Bergstrom Realty for a 60 unit townhouse development at 69th Avenue North and Fremont Place was approved by the Brooklyn Center City Council on August 9, 1982, subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, Condition No. 3 of said approval required the submission of a performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee to assure completion of approved site improvements; and WHEREAS, Bergstrom Realty, in the person of Kenneth L. Bergstrom, entered into a performance agreement with the City on August 16, 1982 with a completion date of August 9, 1983 and submitted a performance guarantee in the form of a $75,000 Irrevocable Letter of Credit (No. 302 from Camden Northwestern Bank) at that time; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council authorized a reduction in the performance guarantee to $45,000 on October 3, 1983 in lieu of partial completion of the approved site improvements; and WHEREAS, City staff have transmitted status reports to Bergstrom Realty ID regarding the required site improvements at Hi Crest Square Estates, including a report dated June 3, 1985 which informed the developer, Bergstrom Realty, that foreclosure on the performance guarantee would be pursued if all work was not completed by August 1, 1985; and WHEREAS, Bergstrom Realty has acknowledged receipt of the staff status reports, but has failed to complete or cause to be completed the required site improvements as of August 5, 1985; and WHEREAS, the incomplete status of the project site improvements has been documented in an inspection report memorandum dated August 6, 1985 Which is attached hereto by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. That the staff inspection report dated August 6, 1985 pertaining to site improvements at Hi Crest Square Estates is hereby approved. 2. That City staff are hereby directed to complete or have completed under contract all unfinished or improperly completed site improvements at the Hi Crest Square townhouse development required by approval of Planning Commission Application No. 82023 in accordance with community standards. RESOLUTION: N0. 3• That the costs of completing the approved site improvements be collected from Camden Northwestern Bank which, by its Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 302, dated July 26, 1982, has agreed to guarantee such improvements up to a cost of $75,000. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a 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. TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works i Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection 7� FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner DATE: August 6, 1985 SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee for Hi Crest Square Estates The following performance guarantee is recommended for foreclosure for failure to perform work required by City Council approval of Application No. 82023. 1. Hi Crest Square Estates Fremont Place and 69th Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 82023 Amount of Guarantee - $45,000 Letter of Credit An inspection of the Hi Crest Square Estates development on August 5, 1985 showed that a number of trees and shrubs which were reported dead in a June 3, 1985 status report to the developer (attached) had been replaced, as reported by H. E. Homes in a letter dated July 29, 1985 (received by hand delivery August 1, 1985). However, since June 3, 1985, other plantings have died. Plantings which now appear to be dead include the following: -A Littleleaf Linden at the west end of 68th Avenue North -Five Redtwig Dogwoods at the west end of the pond -Five Russian Olives along the east side of the development In addition, there are five plantings around the site, ranging from shrubs to decorative trees to a shade tree near the southeast corner of the site that are all marginal at this time. The areas noted in the June 3, 1985 report as bare or weedy are generally still bare and weedy. Some seeding was done in a bare spot on the south end of Fremont Place. The berm along 69th has been mowed as has the area west of the fence. But, weeds constitute 30% to 70% of the ground cover on the berms around the site. An area along the south edge of the project (within the fence along the south property line) has never been sodded, is not mowed, and continues to be a weed patch. The southeast and southwest corners of the property are still bare for the most part and tend to be neglected. Regarding other deficiences noted in the June 3, 1985 status report, there still is no pump installed at the pond to keep the water level at a certain minimum elevation. The water appears somewhat murky though no algae have formed on the surface. To my knowledge, the construction debris, which was reported to have been thrown into the pond by construction workers, has not been removed. _ The parking stalls have not been striped in the common parking area. Areas of pavement settling in 68th Avenue North have not been filled in. A storm sewer line east of Fremont Place, between 6832 and 6836 Fremont Place is not draining properly, according to the homeowner's association and may need repair. Memo Page 2 August 6, 1985 The Hi Crest Square Estates development plan received approval on August 9, 1982 under Planning Commission Application No. 82023. Site work began in the fall of 1982 and the first permits for building construction were issued in October of 1982. Construction continued through 1983 and into mid 1984. Landscaping, for the most part, was left until late summer and early fall of 1984 when staff warned the developer to complete site work or the City would foreclose on the financial guarantee. The site and the pond area especially have been neglected by the developer throughout the construction process and have been a source of complaints from the residents. As has been noted, the developer was notified in early June, 1985 of continuing site deficiencies and given until August 1, 1985 to complete the work. H. E. Homes has replaced some plantings and delivered a letter to the City Hall on August 1, 1985 describing their efforts. The only response from Bergstrom Realty (the obligor) has been a phone call from Ken Bergstrom on July 26, 1985 in which he informed me that the matter of the pump had been turned over to Merila and Associates in December of 1984 and that nothing had been done. Mr. Bergstrom complained that he had paid for engineering services once and wasn't going to pay again for this work.. I pointed out to Mr. Bergstrom that that was a matter between him and Mr. Merila, that the City held the guarantee against Bergstrom Realty, and that the deadline for completion of-the work was fast approaching. I can only conclude from the developer's failure to perform the required work and from the general history of neglect with this project that the required work will not be completed within a reasonable time, unless it is completed at the direction of the City. I, therefore, recommend that the City foreclose on the $45,000 Letter of Credit posted by Bergstrom Realty and utilize the available funds to complete the site work in accordance with the approved site plan and community standards. Approved by era d Sp i ter, city Manager PLANNING AND INSPECTION DEPARTMENT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 STATUS OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS NOTICE TO: Kenneth L. Ber strom -Ber stron.Realty 3401 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Date: June 3, 1985 Site Location: 69th AVenue North and Fremont Place (Hi Crest Square Estates) Amount of Performance Guarantee: $ 45,000.00 Application No. 82023 Approval Date: August 9; 1982 The City holds a Site Performance Agreement and Financial Guarantee for required improvements at the above site, which has been recently inspected as to compliance with approved plans, conditions of approval, and applicable ordinance requirements. - - ► ....._ The following improvements must be completed or corrected before release of the financial guarantee can be made. Please notify this office, in writing when the work is finished so another inspection can be arranged. Please direct questions-to this office. (612) 561 -5440. DESCRIPTION OF REMAINING IMPROVEMENTS OR CORRECTIONS: Landscaping The following is a list g of plantings that have not survived the past winter and must be replaced. -Black Hills Spruce (22'): 2 nearly dead, one near 69th, one at south end of project. Littleleaf Linden (12 "): One dead near intersection of Fremont Place & 67th Lane. Radiant Crab (5'):• Four (4) dead at various locations around the site. - Russian Olive (7/8 "): Eleven (11) dead at various locations around the site. Hackberry (12 "): Three (3) dead, one along south edge of project, another 2 on east side toward south end.. ' - Hackberry (4 "): One (1) missing at south end of project. - Zabel's Honeysuckle (2'): One (1) is dead and 3 are very nearly dead at south end of project. In addition to these plantings, there are various areas around the that are quite _- weedy or are bare and - to be tilled over, graded and sodded to achieve good, viable turf. These areas include: -The berm along 69th Avenue North. -The area belonging to the project west and south of the fence. -Bare spots around the pond, especially at the storm sewer inlet. -Bare spots along east side of fence. -Bare spots on berms along east side of project and large bare area at southeast corner of project. -Large bare spot at south end of Fremont Place. -Other areas alongside driveways throughout complex. P/I Form No. 31 Bergstrom Realty Company Page 2 June 3, 1985 General Site Improvements: There are some low spots in the street on 68th Lane that should be filled in. - Parking spaces in the common areas are not striped. -The storm sewer line east of Fremont Place, between 6832 and 6836 Fremont Place is still not functioning properly according to the association and must be repaired. Other Improvements: The pump to maintain an adequate elevation in the pond has not been installed. The pump should be placed approximately 6" to 1' below the level of the storm sewer outlet designed so that it will shut off automatically when the proper elevation is achieved. It should not run continuously pumping water into the storm sewer system. The aerator which has been purchased is not hooked up and operational. The electrical service for the aerator needs to be completed so that it can be put to use during the summer months. The aerator has not been required of this project,but it is recommended. — The association has reported that there is construction debris in the pond. Any such debris should be removed as soon as possible. The pond is not a garbage pit. Also, a small pile of bituminous material has been left along the curb in the common parking area off Fremont Place, just south of 68th Lane. This material should be removed immediately along with any other leftover construction materials around the site. Finally, it should be noted that the fence along the south side of the project ties into the garages serving the apartments to the south. This leaves a strip of land that actually belongs to the apartments within the physical bounds of the townhouse complex. We would not absolutely forbid this arrangement, but it could lead to a civil dispute at some time in the future. There should be a definite written understanding between the association and the owner of the apartments if this arrangement is to continue. The deficiencies outlined above must be corrected and completed by August 1, 1985 or staff will recommend to the City Council that the performance guarantee be foreclosed on and the work completed by the City (or under contract). I see no reason to extend further time for work that would be done now if it had been done right to begin with. The completion date for this project has long since passed. The units are completed and occupied. The site work should be finaled out immediately so that the homeowner's association can assume responsibility for maintenance. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact either myself or Plan- ning Director Ronald Warren. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Sincerely yours, Gary Shallcross Planner GS:mlg �cc is Ha man, H. E. Homes, Inc. Teresa Simon, Hi Crest Square Estates Association 2 H.E. HOMES �° Q 7038 BROOKLYN BLVD. U 9b► ..3 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429 03 July 29, 1985 elf, 1 l "r. f axy Srallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway BrooklNr Center, MIN 55430 Dear Gary: Thank You your notice dated June 3rd, 19 regarding application PTO. 82023 for the site location of 69th Avenue North and Fremont Place (HiCrest Square Estates) Jith regard to replacement of trees and scrubs, status is as follows: Black Hills Spruce: One near 69th came back. One near South end of project was replaced with a Colorado Spruce, due to availability, Little Leaf Linden: Tear intersection of Fremont Place & 67th Lane, was replaced with a potted Maple due to availability. Radiant Crab: One came back, the other three died due to rabbits and /or mice. These three were replaced with 5" potted crab. Russian Olive: The eleven were replaced. Three days later five were wilting due to lack of water. Since your inspection, an additional nine have died due to neglect. Lack of watering. Also we noticed skin marks from a lawn mower which causes death. Hackberry: The one along the South side came back. Two on East end replaced with potted b"aple due to availability. Single family neighbor advised our landscaper, the Hackberry's did leaf out in the .`)prim. He offered to do the watering so they* would not be negected. v Hackberry 5': 4e do not feel one is missing at the South end of project. It may not be positioned according to plan. However, there are equal number per thelist on plan. label's Honeysuckle: All four are doing fine. Due to these being transplants, and with the low soil temperatures this spring, they took a lone er warmin, time. lur landscaper pointed out the following; concerns to us: k. lack of watering B. lack of fertilizer -.nd maintenance on s regular basis C. Su;�-gested -Mall fencesto prevent r.bbits, etc from feedir.r on bark D. Lam company to be more considerate around trees, etc. a� t h�.11cross .v 20 Jul �, 1 Jul 8 9 Hope this will alleviate any concerns you may of had with regard to the landscaping at Hi Crest Square `3 Should you have any questions regarding the above information, please give me a call at 56o -4122. Sincerely, To L. n TLH:jnp cc: Kenneth L. Bergstrom Theresa Simon, Hi Crest Association 3431 1 r•`i9 � 19 ,9 5 RRCE o N BROOR(YN 614 YA Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF DR. ROBERT I. SHRAGG WHEREAS, Mr. Robert I. Shragg, MD. set up medical practice in the village of Brooklyn Center in 1955. as the first physician serving the Brooklyn Center community; and WHEREAS, Dr. Shragg served as Brooklyn Center Health Officer from 1955 to 1978; and WHEREAS, Dr. Shragg is celebrating 30 years of medical practice in Brooklyn Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Council recognizes the achievements and expresses recognition of Robert I. Shragg, MD. 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. . - FQ,) Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (BROOKWOOD ESTATES PROJECT), IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,600, 000, WHICH BONDS AND THE INTEREST AND PREMIUM THEREON SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE REVENUES DERIVED FROM THE LOAN AGREEMENT AND THE LETTER OF CREDIT; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A TRUST INDENTURE, A LOAN AGREEMENT, A LETTER OF CREDIT AGREEMENT, AND A REGULATORY AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SALE OF THE BONDS AND DIRECTING DELIVERY THEREOF; AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE BONDS; CONSENTING TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND A FORM OF FINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITIES, RIGHTS, AND REMEDIES OF THE HOLDERS OF SAID REVENUE BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City ") is a home -rule charter city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and nd WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes Chapters 462A and 462C, as amended (the "Acts"), the City s authorize ut oriz ed to carry out the public purposes described therein and Y bl c ur Y p p p contemplated, thereby by issuing its revenue bonds to defray, in whole or in part, the development costs of a rental housing development, and by entering into any agreements made in connection therewith and pledging them as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on any such revenue bonds (the "Program "); and WHEREAS, to provide a means of financing the cost of a rental housing development that will provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for residents of the City at rents they can afford, and further (1) to provide for and promote the public health, safety, morals and welfare; (2) to provide for efficient and well - planned urban growth and development, including the elimination and prevention of potential urban blight, and the proper coordination of industrial facilities with public services, mass transportation and multifamily housing developments; and (3) to assist persons of low and moderate income in obtaining safe and sanitary housing at rents which they can afford, which constitute.valid public purposes for the issuance of revenue bonds under the Acts, the City has developed a program with respect to (i ) the issuance by the City of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Brookwood Estates Project) (the "Bonds ") in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $3,600,000, and (ii) the use of the Bond proceeds by the City to make a loan (the "Loan ") to Brookwood Estates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Developer ") in accordance with the provisions of the loan agreement between the City and the Developer dated as of the date hereof ( the "Loan Agreement ") to finance a multifamily rental housing development (the "Project "); and -1- RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 83 -183, adopted December 5, 1983, the City gave preliminary approval to the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, the City developed a Housing Plan pursuant to and in conformity with the Acts, and on September 20, 1982, held a public hearing thereon after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in the City; and WHEREAS, the City by the passage of Resolution No. 82 -189 adopted the Housing Plan on September 21, 1982; and WHEREAS, the Housing Plan was submitted on July 22, 1980 to the Metropolitan Council, which reviewed the Housing Plan and forwarded its comments to the City, which comments were reviewed and discussed by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City held a public hearing regarding the Program on February 14, 1983, for which a hearing notice was duly published in the Minneapolis Star & Tribune on January 12, 1983; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City adopted the program for the issuance of the Bonds (the "Program ") by the passage of Resolution Number 83 -31, adopted on February 14, 1983; and E WHEREAS, the Acts require approval of the Program by the Minnesota Housing inance Agency (the "Agency"), which g g Y approval was given on July 25, 1985; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the the Acts, and the Trust Indenture by and between the City and First Trust Company of Saint Paul (the "Trustee ") (the "Indenture "), the City proposes to undertake the Program, and for the financing thereof, to authorize, issue and sell the Bonds; and ! WHEREAS, neither the City nor the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof shall be liable on the Bonds, and the Bonds shall not be a debt of E the City, the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision thereof, and in any event shall not give rise to a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the City, the State of Minnesota, or .any political subdivision thereof (including without limitation the City), and shall not be payable out of any funds or properties E other than those of the City provided as security by the Indenture; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA: Section 1 . The City Council of the City acknowledges, finds, determines, and declares that the preservation of the quality of life in the City is dependent upon the maintenance, provision, and preservation of an adequate housing stock, that accomplishing this is a public purpose, and that many would -be providers of housing units in the City are either unable to afford mortgage credit at present 2 RESOLUTION NO. market rates of interest or are unable to obtain mortgage credit because the mortgage credit market is severely restricted. Section 2 . The City Council of the City furthdr finds, determines, and declares that the purpose of the Program is to issue the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Developer to finance the construction of a rental housing development consisting of approximately 73 rental. units to be located at 6201 North Lilac Drive in the City of Brooklyn Center, for occupancy primarily by persons of low and moderate income. Section 3 . For the purpose of financing the Program there is hereby authorized the issuance of the Bonds of the City in an amount not to exceed $3,600,000. The Bonds shall be in such principal amount, shall mature, shall be in such denomination, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have such other details and provisions as are prescribed by the Indenture and the Official Statement hereinafter referred to. The Bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not in excess of percent ( %) per annum. Section 4 . The Bonds shall, be special obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues of the Program, in the manner provided in the Trust Indenture (the "Indenture ") between the City and First Trust Company of Saint Paul. The Bonds do not constitute a debt to the City, nor does the City pledge its full faith and credit in regard to the issuance of the Bonds. The City Council of the City hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor of the City (the "Mayor") and the City Manager -Clerk (the "City Manager ") to execute, under the corporate seal of the City, the Indenture, and to deliver to First Trust Company of Saint Paul (the "Trustee ") the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the terms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties, and agreements of the bondholders, the City, and the Trustee as set forth therein. All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the transaction and as the Mayor and City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine; provided that -the execution thereof by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 5 . The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to accept and execute the Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Underwriting Agreement ") from Miller & Schroeder Municipals, Inc. (the "Underwriters "). All of the provisions of the Underwriting Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Underwriting Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the transaction and as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine; provided that 3 RESOLUTION NO. j the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 6 . The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement and, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, the Loan Agreement shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the transaction and as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine; provided that the execution thereof by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. . Section 7 . The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Letter of- Credit Agreement (the "Letter of Credit Agreement ") by and between the City, the Trustee and Midwest Federal Savings and Loan Association (the "Lender "), and when executed and delivered by the parties thereto, the Letter of Credit Agreement shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Letter of Credit Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the transaction and as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine; provided that the execution thereof by the parties thereto shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 8 . The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to accept and execute the Regulatory Agreement (the "Regulatory Agreement ") between the City, the Lender, the Trustee and the Developer and, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, the Regulatory Agreement shall be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The Regulatory Agreement shall be substantially in the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof, and is hereby approved, with such necessary variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially affect the substance of the transaction and as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their discretion, shall determine; provided that the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. Section 9 . All covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements of the City contained in this resolution or contained in the Indenture, Loan Agreement, Letter of Credit Agreement, Regulatory Agreement or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, representations, and agreements shall be binding upon the City. Except as otherwise provided in this resolution, all rights, powers, and privileges conferred, and duties and liabilities imposed upon the City or the City Council members thereof by the provisions of this resolution or of the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Letter of Credit Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement or other 4 RESOLUTION NO. documents referred to above shall be exercised or performed by the City, or by such members, officers, board, body, or agency as may be required or authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Letter of Credit Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement or other documents referred to above shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, representation, or agreement of any officer, agent, or employee of the City in that person's individual capacity, and neither the members of the City Council of the City nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. Section 10 . Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the Indenture, expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person, firm, or corporation other than the City, the holders of the Bonds, the Trustee, and the Developer and the Lender to the extent expressly provided in the Indenture, any- right, remedy, or claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof or of the Indenture or any provision thereof, this resolution, the Indenture and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the City, the holders from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution and the Indenture, and the Developer and the Lender to the extent expressly provided in the Indenture. Section 11 . In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution or of the Indenture or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution or of the Indenture or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the Indenture, and the Bonds shall be construed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. The terms and conditions set forth in the Indenture the le a of revenues derived h P � from the Program referred to in the Indenture, the pledge of collateral derived from the Program referred to in the Indenture, the creation of the funds provided for in the Indenture, the provisions relating to the application of the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds pursuant to and under the Indenture, and the application of said revenues, collateral, and other monies are all commitments, obligations, and agreements on the part of the City contained in the Indenture, and the invalidity of the Indenture shall not affect the commitments, obligations, and agreements on the part of the City to create such funds and to apply said revenues, other monies, and proceeds of the Bonds for the purposes, in the manner, ; and according to the terms and conditions fixed in the Indenture, it being the intention hereof that such commitments on the part of the City are as binding as if contained in this resolution separate and apart from the Indenture. Section 12 . All acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State f of Minnesota, relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the Indenture and the other documents referred to above to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to the issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the Indenture and the other documents referred to above have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 5 RESOLUTION NO. Section 13 . The City Council of the City, officers of the City, and attorneys and other agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution and the Indenture and the other documents referred to above for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the Indenture and the other documents referred to above, and this resolution. Section 14 . The City hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, substantially in the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof. The City hereby consents to the use by the Underwriters in connection with the sale of the Bonds of the Final Official Statement , - - - substantially in the- form of the Preliminary Official Statement; provided that the City Manager may consent to such variations, omissions, and i insertions as are not materially inconsistent with the form on file with the City Manager on the date hereof. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Final Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the City for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Final Official Statement. Section 15 . The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all certificates, agreements or other documents which i are required by the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, Letter of Credit Agreement, the Underwriting Agreement or the Regulatory Agreement, or any other certificates or documents which are deemed necessary by bond counsel to evidence the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, the Indenture or the other documents F referred to in this Resolution, or to evidence compliance with Section 103(b)(4)(A) or Section 103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended; and the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby designated as Officers of the City for the purposes of executing the Officer's Certificate; and all such agreements or representations when made shall be deemed to be agreements or representations, as the case may be, of the City. Section 16 . If for any reason the Mayor of the City is unable to execute and deliver those documents referred to in this Resolution any other member of the City Council of. the City -may execute and deliver such documents with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed by the Mayor. If for any reason the City Manager of the City is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this Resolution, such documents may be executed and delivered by any other member of the City Council or the Assistant City Clerk with the same force and effect if such. documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager of the City. Section 17. All costs incurred by the City in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds and the execution and delivery of the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, the Letter of Credit Agreement, the Regulatory Agreement, or E the Underwriting Agreement or any other agreement or instrument relative to the Bonds, whether or not actually issued or delivered, shall be paid by the Developer F or reimbursed by the Developer to the City. i Section 18 . This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. f 6 RESOLUTION N0. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote_ being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -7- AUG 91985 T rth ve5430 Boone Anue North • New Hope, MN. 55428 • Phone (612) 536 -7000 ter August 7, 1985 Wallace T. Johnson Director of Housing Brutger Company 1 Sunwood Drive Box 399 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Dear Mr. Johnson: North Ridge Management Corporation met last night to discuss a management contract with Brutger for the Brookwood Property. After much discussion, it was decided that because of our own project regarding elderly housing, we do not have the adequate number of personnel to expand our services to Brookwood at this point in time. Although we have a special interest in Brooklyn Center, we feel that we would do an injustice to both Brutger and North Ridge if we spread ourselves to thin. We appreciated our dialogue with you. Sincerely, G�� I Thompson RN to of Human Services t MJT: A Caring Community Providing Choices for the Elderly i A - RE LTY,MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. REALTY DEVELOPMENT E fLOPMENT SERVICES, INC. 2001 Killebrew Drive, suite 308 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55420 Phone (612) 854 -8800 March 19, 1985 Mr. Wally Johnson One Sunwood Drive Suite 399 St. Cloud, Minnesota 56302 Dear Mr. Johnson: I want to thank you for taking the time to talk with me regarding our property management services. I have enclosed a brief description of who Realty Management agement Services, Inc. is and what we do, along with a listing of the properties that we currently manage. As you know we are involved in all aspects of the property management business. In addition to managing subsidized programs under the • 236 and Section 8 programs, we also have a great deal of experience with market rate properties. We have experience in managing properties not only n the Minneapolis-St. - y nneapohs St. Paul area, but also in outstate Minnesota, the Chicago area, Texas, Illinois, Nevada, South Dakota and North Dakota. I would like to give you a call sometime within the next week to set up a meeting so we can discuss the various aspects of our manage- ment. Again, thank you for your time. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future. Sincerely, REALTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. i ?V* . f e id JDR /f s encl. "THE REALTY SERVICES COMPANIES OFFICES IN MINNEAPOLIS. CHICAGO, ROCHESTER REALTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (RMS) RMS - Who we are and what we do Realty Management Services, Inc. (RMS) is a Minnesota corporation established in September, 1975. Since that time, RMS has been serving those segments of the real estate industry which require unusually strong marketing and management skills -- commercial and residential developments, including rental properties, cooperatives and condominiums. • With corporate headquarters at 2001 Killebrew Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota, the management team is lead by Thomas W. LaSalle, President, and JoAnn D. Rafferty, Vice President in charge of residential property. Also located in the Minneapolis office is the RMS executive and administrative staff, which is comprised of Certified Property Managers, Marketing, maintenance and support personnel responsible for the management of over 40 properties, which produce annual net revenues in excess of $25,000,000. In addition to our headquarters, we have a branch office in Lisle, Illinois where a'Property Manager is readily available to local properties. • From the main office in Minneapolis and a branch office in the Chicago area, RMS manages over 40 properties which house some 4,000 families. Our experience includes the management of sites in large cities and small towns, inner city and suburban areas, in places as diverse as Minneapolis and Corpus Christi, Chicago and Spring Grove, Las Vegas and Bismarck. Such wide ranging exper- ience provides the kind of housing market knowledge which produces innovative solutions to problems created by the constantly changing real estate scene, as it applies to condominium and cooperative management. Our- experience in the development of residential pro- perties adds the dimension of depth to the breadth of housing knowledge mentioned above. The RMS principals and staff have developed more than twenty residential properties ranging in size from 20 unit suburban townhouse projects to high rise apartment buildings. This develop- ment work has provided RMS with the technical, hands -on experience necessary for understanding the implementation of solutions to any housing problems which may arise. We can advise you in the handling of any difficulties, whether they be related to the physical structure of your building or the financial structuring of your mortgage. i S In addition, the RMS staff has management experience with a wide variety of housing types. The properties in our management portfolio include rentals, cooperatives and condominiums. The properties range from low and medium income federally- financed housing to middle and high income structures with conventional financing. The kinds of administrative, financial and social issues which arise in these different housing types call for varying types of solutions and expertise. What does not vary from one property type to the next is the over- riding RMS concern for both the well being of the residents and the protection and enhancement of the . properties. • RaAI,TY ru'� ^:r�v�'r _III' S '?'.'IC ?` , IN C' ACTIVE Development Name Develoa-ient Type Ito. of L'n is Birchwood Family, 7 -1 cerly 51 Stillwater, Minnesota Black Forest Conr'.arL rniu MS 273 Fridley, Minnesota Bossen Terrace Fa7i' y `ianc? cap 66 Minneapolis, Minnesota Brandychase Conco. '-.1 U 64 St. Paul, Minnesota Calhoun Isles Ccm r'.o. i-ni u. -,c 107 Minneapolis, Minnesota Cedar Green - Fami 30 Owatonna, Minnesota • Cedar Place Elderly 68 Owatonna, Minnesota Crossroads Family 172 New Brighton, Minnesota The Eagle Apartments Family 561 Mankato, Minnesota Eastport Apartments Fanqily 7' Mankato, Minnesota Fairway Woods Conc:cr7in uc:,s 12.0 Eden Prairie, Minnesota Findley Place Family . 39 Minneapolis, Minnesota Franklyn Park ".1:;eriy 117 North St. Paul, "Minnesota Grand Place n:.0 :a '1 St. Paul, tinnesota Greenwood Place Far >bault, Minnesota • Develo nt Name � Development Type No. of Units Gus Johnson Plaza Elderly 108 Mankato, Minnesota Harmony Manor Elderly 20 Harmony, Minnesota Inn Towne Apartments Family 38 Mankato, Minnesota Lewis Park Handicapped 103 St. Paul, Minnesota Madison School Family 52 Minneapolis, Minnesota Maple Knoll Family 57 Maplewood, Minnesota Marshall Avenue Family 12 St. Paul, Minnesota Meadowland Family 44 . Shoreview, Minnesota Medley Park Townhouses Family 30 Golden Valley, Minnesota Mississippi Terrace Family/Elderly 113 Brainerd, Minnesota Nokomis Square Cooperative Elderly Cooperative 208 Minneapolis, Minnesota Oak Glen Family 64 Edina, Minnesota Old Town In Town Cooperative 56 Minneapolis, Minnesota Patterson Place Elderly 117 Bismarck, North Dakota Regency Condoniniums Condominium:; 97 St. Paul, Minnesota River Run Family /Elderly 100 Macomb, Illinois Rolling Meadows Faa�ly Cooperative 202 Inver Grove Heights, vinnesota Development Name Development Type No. of Units Rosemount Community Housing Family 28 Rosemount, Minnesota Schule Haus Elderly 52 Jordan, Minnesota Seward Square Handicapped 81 Minneapolis, Minnesota Shadowood Family 300 Lisle, Illinois Spring Grove Manor Elderly 31 Spring Grove, Minnesota Sunrise Meadow Family 63 St. Peter, Minnesota Walnut Place Family 30 Rockford, Minnesota Westridge Condominiums 60 Plymouth, Minnesota . Wilshire Towers Family 321 Bloomingdale, Illinois Wimbledon Green Elderly 45 St. Cloud, Minnesota Total Active Contracts 4,295 Consulting Services Only (Residential) Cedar Riverside Land Company Family 500 Minneapolis, Minnesota Grand Total 4,795 Consulting Services only (Conmercial) Cedar Riverside Land Company Retail/Office 173,000 sq. ft. Minneapolis, Minnesota i m , ACTIVE MANAGE!M=i CONTRACTS (Continued) BLN Office Park Office 120,.000 sq.ft. Minneapolis, Minnesota Nichols Office Building Office 52,000 sq.ft. Mankato, Minnesota Total 172,000 sq.ft. CONTRACTS FOR PROJECTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT Development Name Development Type No. of Units Village in Edina Condominiums 392 Edina, Minnesota Elderly 200 Historic Bremer /Bremer Way Elderly /Family 101 Minneapolis, Minnesota Parkland Terrace Family 40 Anoka, Minnesota Palmer Drive - Phase II Elderly 48 New Brighton, Minnesota The Kenwood Elderly 156 Minneapolis, Minnesota Wintergreen Elderly 100 Hudson, Wisconsin Total Under Development 1,037 GRAND TOTAL 5,832 i ��.. AUG 51985 f August 2, 1985 Brutger Company Inc One Sunwood Drive Box 399 St. Clous, MN 56302 CERTIFIED MAIL Attention: Wally Johnson Dear Wally, As you and Brutgers have a reputation of not knowing about existing problems at Brookwood Estates, I am sending this certified mail. Only July 27th after being out of the house for over twelve hours we were met with a horrid stench. It was coming from the kitchen sink area. We identify it with sewer gas. We filled the sinks with water and opened all the windows and turned on the fan. We have been living like that since. On Monday we reported it to Jan Huebner and she said she would take care of it. On Wednesday nite at 6:00 she had several persons from Akins Mechanical come and take a look. In moments before they came in I had dumped a half bottle of Mr. Clean into the drains, naturally that broke the horrid smell. These persons went down into 410 -310 -210 and found those drains all dry. They assumed that would solve the problem. Thursday our smell was back. Our neighbor next door smelled it and also thought.it to be sewer gas. Jan came back up and she too could smell it and put in a call for Akins. Another person came from Akins. This persons had checked the roof vent and upon his checking the kitchen sink area stated it was the "water ". He said you never know where they are getting their water from City of Minneapolis or other places. Now the City of Brooklyn Center does not buy water from Minneapolis. We have our own deep wells. I have worked for the city and connected with the water department for twenty seven years.- To us it was just one more excuse. This person had an unsanitary jar and took a sample and left saying "He'll check it out ". Up to the period of July 27th we have had no smelly water and still do not in the wash room or bath room. I would like this problem resolved for our health sake and for the other tenants. I do not believe it is the water as from the day we moved in there August 3, 1984 we have had no such problem. We are waiting a reply from you and your reply with be shared with the City of Brooklyn Center. Regards, Jean E. Champlin 6201 North Lilac Drive Unit #510 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 CC: City of Brooklyn Center Council and Water Department Jan Huebner, Brutgers Inc • MEMO TO: BC ESTATES FILE RE: Update From Jan on 8/2/85 FROM: Ruth DATE: August 2, 1985 UNIT 510 —Champlin's we will be recieving a certified letter to ATTN: WALLY JOHNSON regarding this unit. On 7/31/85 Jan informed me that she is having a problem with this unit having a sewer gas smell coming from their kitchen sink. Jan said the Champlin's had informed her of this when they came home from vacation - she made a note of it and did not think it was anything of the serious nature until the continued y to notify her of this problem and she then went and checked it out herself on 7/31/85 as they informed her it was continuosly getting worse. On 7/31/85 after talking to Jan I called Atkins Mechanical and talked to Howard and Brad. They said it sounded like possibly a dry trap, . or the owner put something down it before going on vacation. I informed them that they are being very persistant about this problem and we need to have someone check it out today! Per Jan - Atkins was there after hours on 7/31/85 - both Brad and Howard. The smell was not there at the time because the owner had just poured a half bottle of Mr. Clean down the drains they gpt there. They did find the trap to be dry. They then checked the units below them and the traps in these units were also all dry. Jan was not aware of the fact that she needs to be running water in these unoccupied units on a regular basis. On 8/2/85 at 4:30 PM Jan called me back and informed me that they ( Champlin's) were sending a certified letter to the City, Wally, and everyone else • about this problem. Jan said they did complain about the odor problem again on 8/1/85 and Brad from Atkins came back out again and checked all possible sources and found no other problems. _ BC ESTATES Page 2 Jan informed me that on 8/2/85 her cleaning lady and herself went through the units and turned on the faucets, flushed the stools, put water in the traps, etc. to try and eliminate the sewer gas smell that can occur from having dry traps. _ Jan did comment, that because of all the water they used for this process they do have a sulfar smell in the hallway. /rr -- cc: Wally Bert Skip Syl Jerry File I j r^ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -24 (INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK'ON WEST SIDE OF HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 71ST AVENUE AND AMY LANE) AND ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that a public sidewalk should be installed on the West side of Humboldt Avenue between Amy Lane and 71st Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received proposals for such improvement: Bidder Bid Amount Halvorson Construction $ 5,536.00 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. 7,650.00 WHEREAS, the proposal of Halvorson Construction of Anoka, Minnesota, in the amount of $5,536.00 is the lowest responsible proposal received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the • City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The following project is hereby established Project No. 1985 -24 - Installation of sidewalk on West Side of Humboldt Avenue North from Amy Lane to 71st Avenue North 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount'of $5,536.00 with Halvorson Construction of Anoka, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -24 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. All costs for Project No. 1985 -24 shall be charged to Municipal State Aid Fund 2600. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ft7 BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 7, 1985 RE: Installation of Sidewalk on West Side of Humboldt Avenue North between Amy Lane and 71st Avenue North Late last fall we received a request to establish a new school crossing location at Humboldt Avenue and 70th Avenue North. When this request was first reviewed by the Administrative Traffic Committee and with Evergreen School officials it appeared that this would mean having 3 designated school crossings in 3 blocks -ie.- the two existing crossings at 71st and 72nd Avenue, plus the proposed new one at 70th Avenue. Because of the difficulty of patrolling and enforcing 3 school crosswalks, and because of the inconvenience to drivers, this request was initially denied. Subsequent discussion suggested that by installing a sidewalk on the West side of Humboldt Avenue between Amy Lane and 71st Avenue, the school children from Amy Lane could be required to cross at 72nd Avenue instead of at 71st Avenue, thereby eliminating the need for a crossing at 71st Avenue. Accordingly, the Administrative Traffic Committee recommends installation of this one block of sidewalk (see map attached), and establishment of a new school crossing at 70th Avenue. This proposal has been discussed with Ken Berg, Principal at Evergreen School, and meets his support and approval. Two proposals for this work have been obtained. We recommend acceptance of the low bid of Halvorson Construction in the amount of $5,536.00. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, S KnY PP . SK:jn "71:e .SoHCetlsi.cgZ once L „ x \ ...,...o ......... m'• i C�, .�w ml •y•u unon[ofn� 1 •, v \ \ r TRRJfTT \\ •` i ` O J . —I p CO p 1 = --I m CD $MINGLE AEE . W v - W, I N 1 p /J JAYES nVE N' ^ - 2 O .......... .... M i. is CD o = ate\ , �I +• A i ._ ° 11 1 1 114 =o o �'i �• i x - -- OO f NT AV p Z Y O 11 II � y r m ! •. i - � 11- i I M ONT r I � v I Ay No m rn ......... .....,.... \� ............... CArOEN7DO� cs CAMDEN MOVE M ��j I • `� I A i� Tr 7T. x. � � Z. p 1 [ I D ll 5 ~qq a \In pp j V E R DURNAM ISLAND 1 1 BROOKLYN PARK: ....` ON Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS FOR REPLACING WINDOWS AND INSTALLING WEATHERSTRIPPING ON WINDOWS AND DOORS AT COMMUNITY CENTER SWIMMING POOL - - - - -- WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has received the following proposals for the replacement of 6 thermopane windows and for the weatherstripping of 6 pairs of sliding glass doors at the Community Center Swimming Pool: Ford McNutt Glass Company $ 5,692.00 Minneapolis. Glass Company 6,474.00 Harmon Glass Company 8,035.76* *Note: Harmon Glass Company's proposal does not include weatherstripping of the doors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The proposal of the Ford - McNutt Glass Company in the total amount of $5,692.00 is hereby accepted. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to enter into contract with said company at said price. 2. The costs for this work shall be charged to the 1985 General Fund Budget for the Community Center Division. 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 B R000K'LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 8, 1985 RE: Replacement of Windows at Swimming Pool The 1985 budget for the Community Center provides $7,800 for replacing 6 thermopane windows and $7,000 for weatherstripping the patio doors at the swimming pool. The reason for replacing these 6 windows is that their thermopane seals have broken, allowing water and chlorine to get between the two panes of glass and etching the glass, creating a cloudy effect. There is no way to correct this condition other than to replace the windows. Three quotations for this work have been received, as shown on the attached resolution. We recommend accepting the "low bid" from the Ford - McNutt Glass Company. Respec ull submitted, Sy Kn p SK: jn 01 1 CITY OF LYN 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOK BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 CENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 9, 1985 RE: Bids for Contract 1985 -L Installation of Fuel Tanks and Dispensers at Municipal Service Garage In accordance with our advertisement for bids (published both in the Construction Bulletin and in the Brooklyn Center Post) bidswere opened yesterday for this contract. Only one bid was received - from Determan Welding and Tank Service, Inc. - with a total bid of $49,807.00. That bid also was accompanied by a letter which added two conditions to their bid, i.e.: "l. Dowatering Should water be fuel contaminated and require special treatment for disposal into sanitary or storm sewer, we would request an additional charge for this service. 2. Weather Condition Price bid is for non frozen soil, warm weather. If other conditions exist, there will be a request for an additional charge." In addition, the Bidder submitted an alternate bid which contemplates using earth mounding over the tanks (instead of the specified concrete base and strapping) as an anti - floatation system. For this alternate, the bidder offers a $3,000 deduct. "Ile So•Ketlsia-9 Mau etr# August 9, 1985 Page 2 Review and Comments 1. It appears that the reason only one bid was received is that most dealers who are engaged in this type of work do not regularly read the publications in which the ads appeared. We have checked with 3 other possible installers and each indicated they would be interested in the project, but simply were unaware that bids were being taken. 2. The "condition" regarding dewatering is a reasonable condition. Discussion with Determan indicates that this condition was added because, in drilling a test well at the site, they encountered contaminated soil. Unfortunately, this item is extremely difficult to quantify. 3. The "Weather Condition" imposed by the bidder.is unacceptable since, if the contract is awarded, the time schedule is under the contractor's control. 4. Our specifications did allow bidders to submit alternate bids regarding anti - floatation systems. However, this bidder did not submit his proposed design for pre - approval as required by the specifications. 5. Our estimate of construction cost was $45,000. Between now and the Council meeting on Monday, August 12, 1985, we will have Soil Testing Services (STS), a professional engineering firm conduct further testing and analysis in order to quantify the scope of the problem relating to.contaminated water. And, we will attempt to identify the source of the contamination detected by Determan. At least two possible sources exist: (1) a fuel spill and (2) a leak in the existing tanks. We will also ask STS to review the alternate design as proposed by the bidder. Prior to the Council meeting we will also review the time scheduling requirements, to see whether a 2 week delay in award of contract would make it improbable that the project would be completed before winter. After compiling the information,'we plan to be ready to submit our recommendations at the Council meeting on August 12, 1985. Our options will include: Option 1 - accept bid as submitted (with or without alternate bid), but rejecting the "Weather Condition" of that bid. Option 2 - rejecting the bid, and authorizing new bids to be taken on August 22nd, for consideration by the Council on August 26th. Option 3 - rejecting the bid, and wait until next year before proceeding with the project. Respectfully submiitAed, r i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1985 -25 (H.V.A.C. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT WEST FIRE STATION /LIQUOR STORE N0. 2) AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH OFTEDAL, LOCKE AND BROADSTON FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The following project is hereby established: Project No. 1985 -25 - H.V.A.C. System Improvements at West Fire Station /Liquor Store No. 2. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into agreement with the firm of Oftedal, Locke and Broadston for professional engineering services consisting of the preparation of plans and specifications, review of shop drawings and job site observations at a cost not to exceed $3,400.00. r 3. the costs for said project are to be paid from the Government Buildings Division of the 1985 General Fund Budget. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 7, 1985 RE: H.V.A.C. Improvements to West Fire Station /Liquor Store No. 2 In accordance with the approved 1985 budget for the Government Buildings Division we recommend proceeding with improvements to the H.V.A.C. system at the West Fire Station /Liquor Store No. 2 complex. The improvements originally contemplated included removal of the existing boiler which serves both buildings and installation of two separate systems; ie. a radiant heat system to serve the apparatus room of the Fire Station and installation of a "rooftop" heating and air conditioning system for the Liquor Store. After detailed evaluation of existing conditions and performance evaluation, our consulting mechanical engineers ( Oftedal, Locke and Broadston) have advised us that the existing boiler is in good condition, but that some modifications need to be made including installation of a new burner unit and a "zoning" system. In addition, modifications are needed to the heating units in each building. It is their opinion, and I agree that this will give us a better system at a lower cost. Accordingly, we submit, for consideration by the City Council, a resolution establishing the project and approving Oftedal, Locke and Broadston's proposal for design services at a cost not to exceed $3,400.00. Respectfull submitted, Sy I Stapp SK: jn OFTEDAL, LOCKE, BROADSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. O:_A C O N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S 620 SEXTON BUILDING • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415 PHONE 333 -4341 AREA CODE 612 Asst. Vice President August 5, 1985 Bruce E. Follestad Norman K. Knafla Mr.Sy Knapp, City Engineer CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER CIVIC CENTER Burners and Fire Station Revisions Dear Sir: At your request we submit this proposal for mechanical and electrical engineering services for the subject project. We will provide all normal engineering tasks to survey the areas relative to • the construction anticipated, design the heating system modifications, draw plans and write specifications. It is anticipated that the total project construction cost will not exceed $15,000.00, and therefore formal public bid advertisement will not be necessary. During the construction phase of the project we will check all shop drawings submitted, and make job site observations and reports to monitor compliance with the construction documents. Based on several meetings subsequent to our initial survey and report.. dated May 13, 1985, the scope of this project will include the following at the West Fire Station: 1. Boiler system revisions. 2. Liquor Store heat loss study and heating system modifications. 3. Fire Station heat loss study and hetaing system modifications. It is imperative that, and the fee quotation assumes, that floor plans for the West Fire Station /Liquor Store will be available. We will perform all of the above tasks charged at the rate of $55.00 per hour for Senior Engineers, $45.00 per hour for Junior Engineers, with a maximum fee not to exceed $3,400.0 Accepted by the City of Brooklyn Ctr. Yours truly, BY OFTEDAL, LOCKE, BROADSTON & ASSOC., INC. City Manager BY Mayor Bruce E. Follestad DATE BEF:i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE ------------------------------------------------ WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center found and determined that deferral of special assessments for certain senior citizens is in the ub ' passed Cit lic interest and P P Y of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 78 -87 providin g for deferment of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and establishing an interest rate; and WHEREAS, economic conditions over the past seven years have made it increasingly difficult for senior citizens to qualify for deferment of special assessments due to the $7,500 income limitation and persons retired due to permanent and total disability are not included in the present policy; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's Deferment of Special Assessments Policy and desires to develop a policy that responds to ever changing economic conditions: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the policy established by Resolution No. 78 -87 is hereby amended to provide for deferral of special assessments certified after the adoption of this resolution under the following conditions: 1. The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January 1st of the year in which payment of the first installment of the subject assessment levy is due; or is owned by a person who is retired due to permanent and total disability. RESOLUTION NO. 3. The applicant must have a "financial hardship" defined as: a. An annual income at or below the two person rate established by HRA Section 8 housing guidelines (two person household rate is $17,400 in 1985); and b. The aggregate total of special assessment installments from previously- existing special assessment levies plus the first year of the current levy will exceed two percent of the applicant's annual income 4. The portion of the current levy which will be deferred will be that portion of the levy against the applicant's property which requires a first year installment payment which, when added to the applicant's annual payments from previously existing special assessment levies, would result in an aggregate total of special assessment installments totaling more than 2 per cent of the applicant's annual income. The portion of the current levy which can be paid without aggregating total installments above 2 percent of the applicant's annual income shall not be deferred. 5. Special assessments levied due to the applicant's failure -to -pay charges for City services or failure to comply to City codes (i.e. delinquent utility assessments, assessments for weed removals, assessments for nuisance abatement, etc.) shall not be deferred, and installment payments for existing levies for such services shall not be included in calculating the maximum 2 per cent aggregate payment defined in paragraph 4 above. i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest'at the rate for that particular assessment levy shall be added to the deferred assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195 ;.and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to provide application forms, as may be necessary , and is =- authorized to process said applications signed by the qualified persons prior to September 15th of the preceding year of date which payment is due and direct Hennepin County to defer the special assessments within said application. i RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer assessments is hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution except that a surviving spouse of a qualified applicant need not meet the age requirement. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 8, 1985 RE: Deferment of Special Assessments for Persons 65 Years of Age and for Persons Who are Totally and Permanently Disabled Based on our earlier discussions with the City Council, we have revised the proposed policy to provide that: 1. Applicants who meet the income guidelines must still pay for the part of the current special levy which can be paid without raising the applicant's aggregate total assessment installments to over 2 per cent of his /her annual income. Only that part of the assessment which would raise the aggregate total installment payments over the 2 percent "maximum" would be deferred. 2. Assessments which are levied for failure -to -pay or failure- to-act, such as weed removals, delinquent utility bills, nuisance abatements, etc., would not qualify for deferment and installments for such previous assessments would not be included in calculating the 2 percent maximum aggregate installment. The attached material includes: 1. Existing Resolution 78 -87 2. Our original survey questionaire to other cities 3. "Table of Results" of our policy survey - 4. Summary of individual cities' policies 5. Proposed new application form 6. Tabulation showing effects of currently proposed policy on 6 example applicants, showing the effect of using alternate percentage maximums from 1% to 3%. (The proposed policy is submitted based on the 2% maximum, but could be amended to any other percentage which the City Council may wish to adopt.) August 8, 1985 Page -2 If the policy is to be changed, I recommend that the amendment be adopted at the August 12th meeting, since the 1985 assessment rolls will be submitted to the Council on August 26th for the purpose of setting a hearing to be held on September 23rd. Respect ull submitted, Sy Kna SK:jn Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution r and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 78 -87 RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.194 authorizes the municipality to establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assessment which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assessment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center finds and determines that deferral of special assessments for certain senior citizens is in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a deferred special assessment policy for qualified applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the C' of Brooklyn. Center does hereby a 1 tY Council of the City annual installments on all assessments certified eafter c the adoption of this resolution under the following conditions: 1) The property upon which the assessment is deferred must be homesteaded; 2) The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of age on January lst of the payment year; 3) The household income is not to exceed $7,500.00 the year preceding the payment year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for that particular assessment shall be added to the deferred assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to provide application forms, as may be necessary, and is authorized to process said applications signed by the qualified persons prior to September 1 of the preceding year of date which payment is due and direct Hennepin County to defer the special assessments within said application. RESOLUTION NO. 78 -87 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer assessmeats.'is hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution. May 8, 1978 Date- -C < <�� Mayo ATTEST- nz Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler and upon vote being taken' thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka and Celia Scott and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C EN ..TER TO: City Engineers /Directors of Public Works FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 28, 1985 RE: Deferral of Special Assessments for Age or Disability We will appreciate your response to the following questions relating to deferral of Special Assessments essmen is to P persons over 65 or retired by virtue of disability, as per Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195. 1. Has your City adopted a policy for deferral under these statutes? 2. If "Yes" - a. please describe the standards and guidelines established for defining the existence of a HARDSHIP. and /or send a copy of - your policy resolution or statement. b. please describe the standards and guidelines established for defining the existence of a DISABILITY. and /or send a copy of your policy resolution or statement. 3. Any comments? 4. Do you want a copy of our survey summary? Your name Address City /Zip Thanks for your cooperation. Please return in the enclosed stamped, self - addressed envelope. ill S Knapp SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY TABLE OF RESULTS Cities Responding to Survey: Number of Cities: 18 Bloomington Edina North St. Paul Brooklyn Park Fridley Plymouth Burnsville Golden Valley Richfield Champlin Maple Grove Roseville Coon Rapids Minnetonka St. Cloud Eden Prairie New Brighton St. Louis Park Cities with Deferment Based on Age Only: Number of Cities: 9 Bloomington Edina North St. Paul Brooklyn Park Fridley Plymouth Coon Rapids New Brighton St. Louis Park City with Deferment Based on Age or Disability: Number of Cities: 6 Burnsville Eden Prairie Richfield Champlin Minnetonka Roseville Cities with Deferment Based on Low Income: Number of Cities: 1 St. Cloud Cities Using Annual Income Basis of Qualification: Number of Cities: 10 Brooklyn Park Minnetonka St. Cloud Burnsville North St. Paul St. Louis Park Eden Prairie Plymouth Edina Richfield Statistics: Mean: $12,572 Median: $12,750 Mode: $11,000 (2) Cities Using Percent of Annual Income Basis of Qualificiation: Number of Cities: 7 Bloomington Edina Roseville Burnsville Fridley Champlin New Brighton Statistics: Mean: 1.9% Median: 2% Mode: 1% (2) 2% (2) 0 - Cities Using Both Methods: Number of Cities: 2 Edina $15,000 and 2% Burnsville $10,000 and 3% - - - - -- CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS RTI C ULpRS �------- --- ----- -- -- --- ---------------------------- -- -- ------------------------- ....................................... Bloomington/ -over 65 - average annual principle and interest due on all ( - current policy adopted in 1975 not identified special assessments exceeds 1.5% of annual income - deferment automatically terminates when: - property value does not exceed $75,000 ( 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified -interest at the rate for that assessment shall be 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided added to the deferred assessment 3. property no longer homestead 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in the hardship category ----------------- I -------------- --- i--------------- ---- ------- ------- ----- ---- ------ - -- ........................................................ Brooklyn Park/ -over 65 - defers current and future sp ecial ecial assessments if current policy adopted in 1981 Charles Lenthe annual net income minus annual principle and interest - deferment automatically terminates when: payment on assessments does not exceed $12,000 ( 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified - Assessors estimated market valuation does not exceed 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided $100,000 3. property no longer homestead -owner has not signed petition for said improvement 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in on current projects the hardship category -------- --- --- --- -- -- ---------- --- -------------------------- --- ---------------------- ------ ------------------------------------------------------- Burnsville/ -over 65 ( - defers payment of any special assessment if annual - current policy adopted in 1981 Chuck Siggerud - permanent and gross income does not exceed 810,000 - deferment terminates and all amounts accumulated total -the average annual payment for all assessments plus aplicable interest shall be due when: disability ( exceeds 3% of owner's income 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified -special assessments deferred must exceed $400.00 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided -total assets of owner and spouse do not exceed 3. property no longer homestead $20,000 excluding homestead 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual the hardship category circumstances if applicant not covered by above 5. failure to renew application standards I ----------- ------ ------- --- - - - -r- --------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - -- --- --- ------------------------------- Champlin/ -over 65 - annual principle and interest due on an assessment ( current policy adopted in 1982 Sue Knight - permanent and exceeds 2.5% of current annual income ( - interest rate applies to principle and interest of total - Assessor's market valuation must not exceed $80,000 the assessment but shall not apply to the interest disability ( of the deferment --- ----------- --- -- -- ---- ------------- ------------- -- ----- -------- --------------------------------------------------------- Coon Rapids/ -over 65 -the only requirement is that one spouse must be Bill Ottensman over 65 ...... ........... ----------------- --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- .............•------•-----....-............--•---..........----...--••--------•----............................---...... ..._.....----------- ........... CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS ----------------- -- ----- --- -- - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------- I --------------------------------------------------------- � Eden Prairie/ -over 65 - defers payment of special assessment if annual - deferred interest is to be added but not to exceed Kathy Herman - permanent and household income exceeds the following limits. 50% of the original principle amount of the total assessment disability # of People in Household Total Annual Income -deferment terminates and all amounts accumulated plus ----••---•-----------••- ................... applicable interest shall become due when: 1 $13,700 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified 2 $15,650 2. property is sold, transferred, or subdivided 3 $17,600 3. property no longer homestead 4 $19,550 ( 4. the City determines that the owner is no longer 5 $20,750 iry hardship category 6+ $22,000 - Assessor's estimated market valuation does not exceed $130,000 - assessments levied or pending prior to ownership by the applicant are not eligible ------------------ ----- -- ---- - - - - -- ------------------------------ Edina/ -over 65 - applicant's income must not exceed $15,000 ( - current policy adopted in 1977 not identified -the first year's installment of the proposed special -deferred assessment shall bear interest of 1% in assessment must increase the aggregate total of excess of interest rate for that assessment special assessment payments to more than 2% of j applicant's income -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual circumstances if applicant not covered by above standards ---- -- -•- -- - -- --- •-•-------- - - -- -- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Fridley/ -over 65 -The City Council considers each application on an -current policy adopted in 1981 Sidney Inman individual basis. (The general policy is to grant -deferral terminates when: deferment when annual payment for the special 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified assessment exceeds 2% of the adjusted gross income 2. property is sold, transferred, or subdivided from Federal Income Tax.) 3. property no longer homestead _ 4. the City Council decides that further deferments are not in the public interest -- ---- -- -- -- -- - -- -•- ------------------------- Golden Valley/ -no policy Lowell Odland - -- -- --- -------------- -- ------- -- - ----- -------------•------------------•---•--•-- Maple Grove/ -no policy Gerald Butcher ................. ................. I ......................................................... I......................................................... � .......................................................................................................................... ......................... . .. CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS -- --------•----- - - ------ -------------------------- ---------- -- ---- ------ ---- -- --- --------------------------------------------------------- Minnetonka / - retired due - applicant's income must not exceed $13,500 -current policy adopted in 1984 to age (actual ( - certification may be made at any time following the �. age is not adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council specified ) - deferment of an assessment may not exceed 15 years -retired as a result of permanent and total disability ------ ----------- --------- -- - - - - -• --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- New Brighton/ ( -over 65 - average annual payments for all assessments levied - current policy adopted in 1977 Les Proper against the subject property exceeds 1% of adjusted -deferral terminates and all amounts accruing plus gross income interest are due when: 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided 3. loss of homestead status 4. the City council determines that no hardship exists ----------- - - - - -- - ---------- - --- -- --------------------------- ---- --- ----- --- ----- ---- -- - - -- --------------------------------------------------------- North St. Paul/ -over 65 ( - income of all owners does not exceed $11,000 - current policy adopted in 1981 Judy Auger -other persons determined qualified by the City Council ' --------- -------- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------- Plymouth/ -over 65 - Owners gross income does not exceed $13,500 for a one 1 current policy adopted in 1983 Fred Moore person household. Add $1,000 to qualifying income for ( - interest on deferred assessments shaft cease to accrue each additional person. on the original date for final payment of the - property does not exceed 1 acre unless property is special assessment not subdivideable - ---------- - - - - -- -- --------------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- .I Richfield / -over 65 -gross household income does not exceed $11,000 - current policy adopted in 1981 Mike Eastling - permanent and -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual total circumstances if applicant not covered by above disability standard ................. ................. ..........•-------•-•----------.......................... ......................................................... j ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------- I CITY /CONTACT I ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS I ----------------- I ----- - --------- -- I I I Roseville/ 1 -over 65 I - average annual assessments levied after July 27, 1981 1 - current policy adopted in 1981 I Charles Honchelll -permanent and I exceeds 1% of adjusted gross income (income d:i not I - deferment terminates when: I total I include Social Security, Retirement incomes, i 1. owner dies and surviving owner does not qualify disability 1 Disability, Worker's Compensation) I 2. request of property owner I I I I 3. propery is sold, transferred or subdivided 1 I i I 4. the City determines that no hardship exists I ----------------- I ----------------- 1 ------------------------------------------------ --------- i St. Cloud/ I -tow income I - percent credit toward special assessment based upon I - current policy adopted in 1984 Steve Gaetz I I HUD income guidelines i - percent formula is: I - retirement credit for adjusted income is $4,500 1 HUD Adjusted I I I I for retired single owner and $7,200 for retired I Income (minus) Income X 100 I } 1 married owner I Guideline II I I------------------ ----- ------ ---------- -- - - -- 1 I I I I HUD 1 I 1 INCOME I I I GUIDELINE I ----------------- I ....... .......... I ------------------------------- - - - - ------- - -------------- I I St. Louis Park/ I -over 65 i -total household income must be less than $10,500 I - current policy adopted in 1980 I B. Stepnick I I 1 I----------------- 1----------------- 1---------------- - - - - -- I--------------------------------------------------------- 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Application for Hardship Deferment of Special Assessments Name: Phone: Address: I (we), furnish the following information to the City of Brooklyn Center, to be used in evaluating my (our) request for deferment of certain special assessments levied against my (our) property. I (we) understand that deferment of payment of a special assessment is possible for persons 65 years or older or who are retired due to total and permanent disability as of January 1 of the payment year, whose property is homesteaded according to the records of the City Assessor on the date of the adoption of the assessment roll, whose income for the year preceding the payment does not exceed the two person rate established by HRA guidelines, and whose aggregate total of annual installments of special assessments is at or exceeds two (2) percent of household annual income. Failure -to- a and/or failure -to -act ( P Y / assessments cannot be included as part of the aggregate total of installments.) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Is property homesteaded (yes no ) Initials: Lot Block Addition Property I.D. No. - - - - CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The amount of money my (our) household has received from all sources during the year ending December 31, 19 is listed below.. I Amount Received by KIND OF INCOME I HUSBAND I WIFE jOTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER ( Salaries & Wage i I Social Security L L ( Veterans Benefits ( other Retirement I I I ( Money from Rents I I I I Unemploy Insurance t I 1 ( Worker's Compensation I I I ( Disability Benefits ( Dividends /Interest I ( All Other TOTAL OF ALL INCOME HRA GUIDELINE DISCLOSURE OF CURRENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Current Annual Levy # I Improvement I Payment 1 I Total of Current Annual Payments I DISCLOSURE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT I I 1 1 2% of (Current Annuall Amount I I [Levy #I Improvement I Income I Payments IPaid /Deferred 1 I Paid I I I I I 1 Deferredl I I I I I (we have completed this form and under penalties of perjury, declare to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief. Subscribed and Sworn to before me this day of , 19 Signature of Applicant Notary Public Signature of Applicant NOTE PENALTY: "Whoever, in making any statement, oral or written, which is required or authorized by law to be made as a basis of imposing, reductin, or abating any tax or assessment, intentionally makes any statement as to any material matter which he knows is false may be sentenced, unless otherwise provided by law, to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both." SECTION 609.41 MINNESOTA STATUTES Example: This xample shows how five applicants would be affected by th new deferment of special assessment policy on a typicl street reconstruction assessment of $1,200. Determination of Deferment Previous 1 New I I of New Special Assessment Based Annual I Assessment I Assessment 1 I on Income Qualification Income I Payment I Payment 1 Amount I 1% 1 1.5% 1 2% 1 2.5% ) 3% 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - -1 I I I I Paid 1 64 151 1 238 1 264 1 2641 Applicant #1 1 $17,40.0 1 $110 ( $264 I ---- - - - - -- 1 - - - -- 1 - - - - -- I - - - -- I - - - - -- I - - - - -1 Deferred I 200 1 113 I 26 I 0 1 0 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 I I I I Paid 1 174 I 261 1 264 1 264 I 264 1 Applicant #2 1 $17,400 I 1 $264 I---- - - - - -- 1 - - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1 - - - -- 1 1 - - - - -1 Deferred go- 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 I I I Paid I 27 1 95.5 I 164 I 232.5 I 264 Applicant #3 ( $13,700 I $110 1 $264 I ---- - - - - -- I ---- I - - - - -- I - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1 - - - - - 1 I Deferred 1 237!, 1 168.5 I 100 1 31.5 ( 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -I I I I I Paid 1 137 I 205.5 I 264 I 264 1 264 Applicant #4 I $13,700 I I $264 1---- - - - - -- I - - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1 - - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1 - - - - -1 Deferred 1 127 1 58.5 1 0 I 0 I 0 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 1 I I I Paid ( 0 I 40 1 90 1 140 1 190 1 Applicant #5 ( $10,000 1 $110 I $264 1 ---- - - - - -- - - - -- ( - - - - -- ( - - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1 - - - - -1 Deferred I 264! I 224 I 174 I 124 1 74 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - -1 I I I I Paid I 100 1 150 I 200 1 250 1 264 Applicant #6 I $10,000 I ( $ 264 I ---- - - - - -- 1 - - - -- 1 - - - - -- 1 - - - -- 1 - - -- 1 - - - - -1 1 I I 1 Deferred 1 164 1 114 1 64 I 14 I 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -1 I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FIVE YEAR MUNICIPAL STATE AID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, it is estimated the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will receive Municpal State Aid Street construction funds in the amount of $627,234 per year for the succeeding five years for use in the construction of the City's designated Municipal State Aid Street System; and WHEREAS, the City must make annual payments of $60,000 in 1986 and 1987 reducing the total available allottment in each of those year to $567,234. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the following schedule reflects the projected Municipal State Aid funds available for a five year Capital Improvements Program: Accumulated Funds Year Available 1985 Balance Available $1,208,418.40 $1,208,418.40 1986 Estimated Allotment 567,234 1,775,652.40 Available for Construction 1987 Estimated Allotment 567,234 2,342,886.40 Available for Construction 1988 Estimated Allotment 627,234 2,970,120.40 Available for Construction 1989 Estimated Allotment 627,234 3,597,354.40 Available for Construction 1990 Estimated Allotment 627,234 4,224,588.40 :- Available for Construction BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvement Program is hereby approved: RESOLUTION NO. Year Location Estimated Cost 1986 T.H. 252 - North City Limits to 66th Avenue (City share) A. 73rd Avenue Approaches and Signal $ 20,000 B. 70th Avenue Approach and Signal 30,000 C. 66th Avenue Approach and Signal 30,000 Shingle Creek Parkway - I94 to C.S.A.H. 10 A. Overlay 52,000 B. Signals at Summit Drive and John Martin Drive 240,000 69th and 70th Avenue - - Dupont Avenue to Camden Avenue 328,000 Total 1986 Improvements $700,000 1987 France Avenue - 50th Avenue to South City Limits $270,000 50th Avenue France Avenue to T.H. 100 108,000 51st Avenue at County Road 152 Signal and Approach 188,000 North Lilac Drive @ T.H. 100 and Brooklyn Boulevard 162,000 Total 1987 Improvements $728,000 1988 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway R/W Acquisition _$1,600,000 Total 1988 Improvements $1,600,000 1989 69th Avenue - Lee Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway A. Signals at Brooklyn Boulevard and France Avenue $ 240,000 B. Reconstruct Roadway 11011,000 Total 1989 Improvements $1,251,000 RESOLUTION NO, Year Location Estimated Cost 1990 Freeway Boulevard - Shingle Creek Parkway to Camden Avenue A. Overlay from Shingle Creek Parkway to Humboldt Avenue $ 54,000 B. Widen from Humboldt Avenue to Camden Avenue 355,000 C. Signal at Shingle Creek Parkway 120.000 Total 1990 Improvements $529,000 5 Year Total Cost - 1985 through 1990 $4,808,000 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B R00 0 K ' LYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 - 5440. C ENTER TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 8, 1985 RE: Five Year Municipal State Aid Street Construction Program Attached is a copy of a memo from the Office of State Aid /MNDOT in which we are requested to submit a 5 year program for construction on our Municipal State Aid Street System. Accordingly, our office has developed the proposed program as described in the attached resolution and recommend consideration thereof by the City Council. 1. Adoption of this resolution in no way commits the City to proceed with any or all of the projects listed. Rather, it is simply a preliminary program which indicates the City's intent to utilize its Municipal State Aid funds. One major purpose is to convince the State Legislature that it should continue to provide this form of funding by showing that cities do have projects which need to be constructed and that these funds will be properly utilized. 2. The resolution as prepared shows over - programming in relation to available funds. This has been done deliberately in consideration of the following factors: a. The estimated allottments are probably conservative. We do expect these allotments to increase due to a phasing in of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax transfer to the Transportation Fund. b. Our estimated costs for most of the projects are conservative (i.e. - hopefully the estimated costs are high). c. Some projects will undoubtedly be delayed or dropped from the 5 year program, while others may be added. We will be prepared to discuss the proposed program in detail at the August 12, 1985 Council meeting. Re 7zp tfully submitted, Sy SK: jn " 7le ,So,x&1dog X a ve „ SF- 00006 -03 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION - Room 420 Of Office of State Aid f lCe /Yl emOran��m TO. Municipal Engineers DATE: July 15, 1985 FROM: Gordon M. Ya ^ /�^ i`E�eCto PHONE: 612- 296 -9872 SUBJECT: Continuation of the 5 -Year Construction Program Reporting The Municipal Screening Committee at its October 1981 meeting passed the directive which states that By January 1, 1983, each municipality shall submit a revised 5 -year construction program which has been approved by their city council. This program shall include sufficient projects to utilize all existing and anticipated funds accruing during the life of the program. The program will be updated at 3 -year intervals and a review made at that time to ascertain program implementation. The requirements were reviewed and it was determined that this information is valuable to the Unencumbered Construction Fund Subcommittee, as well as, useful to the City Engineers in making the city councils more aware of State Aid funding. To comply with this directive, each city is requested to submit a council - approved, itemized 5 -year program of proposed construction by priority, showing the termini, length, estimated cost, and type of anticipated projects on the enclosed forms. Include only State Aid expenditures in this report. This submittal should be returned to the District State Aid Engineer by Aug. 15, 1985. We are returning a copy of your previous 5 -year construction program to those cities which submitted a report in 1982. These reports could be helpful in preparing this year's submittal. Enclosure: 1982 5 -Year Construction Program �J r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -D (POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1985 -D signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Robbie Construction Company has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -03 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Original Contract $ 24,715.00 Change Order #1 1.320.00 $ 26,035.00 2. The value of work performed is equal to the original contract and subsequent change orders. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $26,035.00. 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 / f Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF UTILITY HOOKUP FEE AGREEMENT FOR TANAMI ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Utility Hookup Fee Agreement with S and G Associates, a Minnesota General Partnership, relating to the proposed Tanami Addition. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk t The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 s:7 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTE R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 8, 1985 RE: Final Plat - Tanami Addition Mr. Walter Gregory of Merila and Associates, Inc. has petitioned the City Council to approve the final plat of the "Tanami Addition - ie. - the land on which the Earle Brown Farm Apartments (1701 - 69th Avenue North) are located, and including the vacant property adjacent to those apartments. Conditions placed on the preliminary plat approval by Y the Ci Council at its June 24 1985 meeti are as _follows. 1. The final - plat is subject to review and approval b the City PP Y Y Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall execute a deed restriction which shall be filed with the title to the property requiring a 10 foot wide green area along the west side of Lot 2. 4. Final plat approval is subject to adoption of an ordinance by the City Council vacating the Irving Avenue North half - street " East of the subdivision. 5. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement prior to final plat approval. 6. The plat shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2. Since approval of the preliminary plat, our office has also noted that a private storm sewer, serving he property which hies g P P Y South of this property, exists along the Easterly side of proposed lot 2 of this addition. Accordingly, we recommend that the owner be required to provide an easement to the owner of that property for the purpose of allowing the operation, repair and /or replacement of that storm sewer. Conditions No. 1, 2 and 4 have been met. ?l:e .Sairet �Z ane L� Condition No. 3 has not been met, but the attornies for the owner are preparing the required document, for review and approval by City staff and the City Attorney. Condition No. 5 will be met upon execution of the Utility Hookup Fee Agreement (copy attached). Condition No. 6 should be continued as a condition of final plat approval. Accordingly, we recommend approval of the final plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. execution of a deed restriction requiring a 10 foot wide green area along the West side of Lot 2. Such restriction shall be filed with the title to the property; 2. receipt of a title opinion from the City Attorney certifying to confirm the appropriate parties responsible for signing the plat; 3. execution of the Utility Hookup Agreement; 4. execution of a storm sewer easement to the adjacent property owner, meeting the approval of the Director of Public Works; and 5. The plat shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2 A separate resolution authorizing the City Manager, to execute the attached Utility Hookup Agreement is provided for consideration by the City Council. Respectful y submitted, Sy 4Xap p cc: Walter Gregory, Merila & Associates Clyde Ahlquist, Franke, Raich & Franke SK; jn .. ".. F :. i_.... ...�. fi. -. .... ... ,...... �i�: r.._. . ". �•ii:. iFf': fir'. ..,... I:: NENNEFIN CCJNTY - -N89 °33'3( ° E 776.56- R /WMONVMENI�• „ .05 69th ° STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT AVE I 'DOC. NO. 1147859 776 NO , DRAINAGE ANGUTILITY EASEMENT_ _ _ I 1 -_ -- _ __ - — — - -- — ' . 60403 r I - - I I I � 172.53 I I II 1 ' II N I I I I I I I I W I, I wl I I III � �I BLOCK I mI un zi a, I I M l I Iul M I I W I , bl W I ill ; N L, 1 I m 'I I, LOT 2 1 o z I I M VJ _I. °:. I I o ° �I I C) i3$ ?? I I O I 'o-'• r � II I ('II I I 1 4 o I n LOT 1 I ° >i I i c II IF211 II II I Q I I M 1 It MI � N$ w !r I I 5,6 S85 °05 07 W 407.09 -- � yl i� I1 �lS X; �! ir Jut I Z O W I .I dJ I `n QI� I t Z' w w14 I L 6 I � I I M Iz `o€ LL /I1 ....... z I I Z o II I , I W I I oa 0 EIJ 120 I " - -- . -- - -S 85 °0507 °W 407.09 -- SCALE In FEET 1 ? S I i3 j2 ' ;Ar,T Drainage and Utility easements are shown thus: tt � I. r.5 II LEGEND c �I • Denotes lron on Pipe Found _ me o Denotes ±" Iron pipe Set With Cap J A I` Stamped pLSf12254 - Being 5 feet in width, unless otherwise noted, adjoining lot lines, and being 10 feet in width, h1ERILA & ASSOGATF.S, INC. unless otherwise noted, adjoining right- of•se: lines, as shown an the plat. E NGINE E RS. SUR YF Y sl T eI AN—n• s , UTILITY HOOKUP FEE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1985, between S & G Associates, a Minnesota General Partnership, herein referred to as the "Owner ", and the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota hereinafter referred to as the "City "; WHEREAS, the Owner desires to subdivide an existing Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1382, Hennepin County, Minnesota into two lots to be known as Block 1, Lots 1 and 2, "Tanami Addition" herein referred to as the "Property ", under Planning Commission Application No. 85015; and WHEREAS, said Property was not assessed for its equitable share of water main costs in conjunction with the construction of said improvements abutting the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED THAT: The Owner acknowledges the benefits received from connection to said water main and that he is responsible for payment of related hookup charges. In accordance with City policy, the amount of said hookup charges shall be based upon rates established by the City Council in the year in which application for utility connection is made. Based upon 1985 rates, the utility hookup charges are as follows: LOT 1 Frontage $ 8,494.38 Area Credit $- 3,557.92 TOTAL $ 4,936.46 r' LOT 2 Frontage $ 4,387.44 Area Credit $- 1,837.70 TOTAL $ 2,549.74 The Owner shall be responsible for extension of water services from the existing mains to the Property. Said extensions, including turf and pavement restoration, must be completed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Said payment is to be made in one of the following two ways (Owner to initial desired payment method): 1. Cash payment in conjunction with.the issuance of necessary utility extension permits. ( ) 2. Property may be assessed for such connection. It is further agreed that this charge against the Property may be certified to the County Auditor as a Special Assessment and shall be paid in equal annual installments over a period of 20 years with the unpaid balance bearing interest at the rate set by the City Council at time of adoption of levy. Said assessment pertains to the referenced connections only. Further construction on the Property, or any portion thereof, may require additional assessments to be levied. It is further agreed that such assessment upon being certified to the County Auditor to be spread upon the tax rolls, shall be treated in all respects as though they originally had been assessed at the time the improvements were installed under the provisions of Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes. ( ) Y IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the said Owner has hereto set hand_ the day and year first above written. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 19_, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me known to be the person_ described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that _he_ executed the same as free act and deed. Notary Public My commission expires CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY Its City Manager (SEAL) WITNESSED: STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) On this day of , 19_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared , to me personally known who, being by me duly sworn they did say that he is the City Manager of the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by the authority of the City Council of the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER and the said City Manager acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal corporation. Notary Public My commission expires 1r;./A CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY am BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ENTER TELEPHONE 56.1 -5440 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 7, 1985 RE: Planning Commission Application No. 85009 Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. Following is an estimate of traffic generation from four development alternates on this 4.48 acre site: Average Daily Maximum Alternate Traffic Hour Traffic No. Description of Alternate Volume Volume 1 72 Units of R -5 Development 440 50 2 21,400 Units of offices ( ie. - 380 60 Special Use permit in R -5 zone as previously proposed by developer L. Cramer under Planning Commission Application 83037) 3 Rezone to C -1, with Maximum 865 140 development = 48,800 S.F. 4 Rezone to C -1, with development 340* of a 750 seat church *Note: the above numbers are for weekday traffic. For church usage, the peak day (Sunday) traffic is estimated to total 1400 trips, with a peak hour of 400 trips. Respectful submitted, SY K PP cc: Ron Warren, Director of Planning & Inspection Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police SK: jn i Date: July 30, 1985 MEMORANDUM To: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager From: Peter M. Koole, City Assessor, Subject: Property Tax Status of Proposed Site of Foundation Ministries Church The proposed site of the Foundation Ministries Church contains 4.48 acres. If it were to be fully developed as an apartment complex, we estimate it would hold 72 units. If developed as an office building, it could contain a 48,800 square foot building. Adding the three adjoining residential parcels, we would get 86 apartments, and 58,400 square feet of office space. Assuming an average tax per rental apartment unit of $700.00 and per square foot of office building of $2.00, we yield the following results. (Acre) Tax As Tax As Tax As, Parcel Size 85 Value 85 Tax Church Apartment Office °119 -21 -24 -0008 4.48 $139,000 $5,086.54 0 $50,400.00 $97,600.00' ant 34- 119 -21 -24 -0009 .29 56,500 1,604.72 0 3,250.00 6,300.00 6527 Brooklyn Blvd 34- 119 -21 -24 -0010 .30 69,400 690.02 0 3,350.00 6,500.00 6521 Brooklyn Blvd 34- 119 -21 -24 -0011 .30 59,800 1,813.66 0 3,350.00 6,500.00 6515 Brooklyn Blvd Totals 5.37 $324,700 $9,194.94 0 $60,350.00 $116,900.00 I have also included a copy of a memo dated September 3, 1981 that tries to answer questions about our general tax exempt versus taxable relationships. I believe this data to still be valid since we only do a tax exempt assessment every six years and will not complete the next one until 1986. The 1980 data used at that time is still the most current data we have available. cc Ron Warren • Enclosure MEMORANDUM Date: September 3, 1981 To: Gerald Splinter From: Peter Roole Subject: Comparison of Exempt Property I have attached a comparison of the larger cities in Hennepin County comparing the 1980 Exempt property values to the 1980 Taxable Assessment. It would appear that Brooklyn Center has an average amount of exempt parcels based upon a comparison of the number of exempt properties compared to the number of taxable properties, however we are below average in the average value of our exempt parcels and the percentage that is of the taxable value. We are also below average in the per capita value of our exempt assessment roll.. The averages are weighted in some cities because of concentrations f o large blocks of value. For example, Brooklyn P k n r • p y Park has two institutions of higher learning, Bloomington has one. St. Louis Park has a large medical facility, and Richfield has the airport. I guess with as much of our precious land that is off the tax roll, it could be worse, if we would have been blessed with one or more of these super - regional facilit & &s. I t COMPARISON OF EXEMPT PROPERTY Avg. Val Taxable Per Exempt # of Avg.Value % Exempt % Exempt Value Value Number Taxable 1980 Exempt Per Exempt 1980 Is Of Taxable Is Of Taxable Per Capita Per Capita City Real Est.1980 Val. Parcels Parcel Value Parcels Parcel Population Value Parcels Taxable Exempt Brooklyn Center $ 604,637,366 8,235 $ 73,423 $ 51,663,100 ( 275) $185,346 31,230 8.54% 3.34% $19,361 $1,654 Brooklyn Park 767,263,826 11,097 69,142 197,518,460 ( 261) 756,776 43,332 25.74% 2.35% 17,707 4,558 Bloomington 2,124,591,170 24,673 86,110 242,888,300 ( 697) 348,477 81,831 11.43% 2.82% 25,963 2,968 Crystal 441,206,400 7,981 55,282 29,891,450 ( 174) 171,790 25,543 6.77% 2.18% 17,273 1,170 Edina 1,796,711,022 16,313 110,140 148,038,710 ( 590) 250,913 46,073' 8.24% 3.62% 38,997 3,213 Minnetonka r 1,149,248,172 14,876 77,255 111,531,995 (1022) 109,131 38,683 9.70% 6.87% 29,709 2,833 Plymouth 967,779,756 11,363 85,169 87,954,600 ( 474) 185,558 31,615 9.09% 4.17% 30,611 2,782 Richfield 764,490,182 11,224 68,112 100,017,050 ( 128) 781,383 37,851 13.08% 1.14% .20,197 2,642' St. Louis Park 1,131,013,408 13,591 83,218 138,782,480 ( 448) 309,782 42,931 12.27% 3.30% 26,345 3,232 Averages - 9 Cities 13,261 $78,650 498 $344,351 42,121 11.65% 3.31% $25,129 $2,789 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 85009 SUBMITTED BY FOUNDATION STONE MINISTRIES, INC. WHEREAS, Application No. 85009 submitted by Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. proposes rezoning from R5 to C1 the parcel of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Northgate Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 9, 1985, when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the application was referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group which, in minutes of a meeting on June 6, 1985, recommended the rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Commission further considered the matter on July 11, 1985 in light of the Comprehensive Plan and the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings from Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance and took further testimony regarding the request at a duly called public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85009 by its adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 85 -1; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council considered the rezoning application at its July 22 and August 12, 1985 regular meetings in light of City Ordinances, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the development potential of the property, and received testimony from neighboring residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 85009 submitted by Foundation Stone Ministries, Inc. be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The C1 zoning classification is an appropriate land use classifi- cation for the parcel in question inasmuchas it is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. The proposed C1 zoning is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically with the Land Use Revisions Map which calls for mid - density residential or office development in the area of land along Brooklyn Boulevard between 63rd Avenue North and I -94. 3. The existing R5 zoning of the property, while it would allow for uses recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, is a residential zoning district which is felt to be inappropriate at a high traffic roadway intersection. 4. The proposed rezoning of the subject property is consistent with the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City Zoning Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that rezoning Application No. 85009 be subject to the following development restrictions: RESOLUTION N0. 1. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard be extended southward to make access to the site right -in /right -out only. 2. A deceleration lane be added within the Brooklyn Boulevard right- of-way north of the access to the parcel: 3. No access to the site be allowed from residential streets to the west and south of the parcel.. Date Mayor r i ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereuponsaid resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. _ E 4 l { t ICA, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of September, 1985 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle,Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoning classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -54140 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1130. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R4) The following properties are hereby established as being within the R4 Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: Lot[s 4 and] 5, Block 1, P.B.0 1st Addition. Lot 2, Block 1, P.B.C. 2nd Addition. Section 2. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is further amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1170. SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT (Cl). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (Cl) Service /Office District zoning classification. [Lots 1 and 3, Block 1, P.B.C. 1st Addition.] Lot 1, Block 1, P.B.C. 2nd Addition. Lot 1, Block 1, Northgate Addition. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. • ORDINANCE N0. Adopted this day o f 19 Mayor ATTEST Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date i (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) _1v CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9th day of September, 1985 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance making churches, chapels and synagogues a special use in the C1 and C2 zoning districts. 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 N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES MAKING CHURCHES, CHAPELS AND SYNAGOGUES A SPECIAL USE IN THE C1 AND C2 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -320. Cl SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT 1. Permitted Uses e. Religious uses other than buidlings for congregational assembly, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art galleries. 2. Special Uses c. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be ag ined to the uses by a collector or arterial street. _ Section 2. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances is further amended in the following manner: Section 35 -322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses r. Chapels, churches, temples and synagogues, provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. _ Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). /f1 b MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 25, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas, Carl. Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. (Chairman Lucht had noted at the end of the July 11 meeting that he would not be present for the July 25 meeting and was excused). APPROVAL OF MINUTES JULY 11, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the July 11, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Nelson and Bernards. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85017 (Arby's) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a convenience food restaurant in the Brookdale Shopping Mall. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85017 attached). The Secretary also discussed the question of whether a. special use permit should be required for operations such as fast food restaurants or game rooms in the Brookdale Shopping Center. He asked the Commission whether they wished to consider waving the special use permit requirement for such uses in Brookdale in the future.. Commissioner Ainas suggested setting a floor area threshhold of perhaps 250,000 square feet, above which the center would be exempted from seeking additional special use permits. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the hours of the restaurant would be later than those of the shopping center. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and noted the need for special exiting provisions from the restaurant to prevent patrons from entering the general mall area. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85017) Chairman Pro tern Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pro tern Manson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Chuck Nadler of Arby's explained that the hours of the restaurant would be until 10:00 p.m. and that there would be a separate gate set up within the mall to channel 7 -25 -85 -1- t l restaurant patrons out of the shopping center after the mall was closed. Mr. Nadler also stated that Arby's would be requesting a sign variance to allow a sign on the outside wall of the mall not adjacent to the Arby's space itself. He showed the Commission a colored rendering of the type of sign that they would be requesting a variance for. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Manson, the Secretary explained that multi -tenant retail centers are allowed to have either common signery or tenant individual signery along the wall area where a specific tenant abuts. He cited the example of Westbrook Mall as a center which had collective tenant identification signery around a common sign band on the building. He recommended that the Planning C ommission k to e no action on a variance request before a formal .submittal had been made and the staff had a chance to comment on the ro osal in light of ordinance P P standards. In answer to another question from Chairman Pro tem Manson, Mr. Nadler pointed out that special use permits are not required in other major shopping malls such as Southdale and Ridgedale. He asked whether the conditions applying to the approval of the special use permit were typical of those applied to other businesses. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Mr. Nadler stated that, if malls were exempted from seeking special use permits for individual tenants, he asked that Arby's also be exempted from the special use category. He stated that he did not like the possibility that the permit could be revoked as noted in the conditions of approval. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked whether Arby's would be the entire space that had been occupied by The Brothers Restaurant. Mr. Nadler responded in the negative, noting that there would be approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of floor area left over. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85017 (Arby's) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 85017, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3• Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the Commission what their feeling was regarding special use permits in Brookdale. Commissioner Ainas recommended that the City adopt an ordinance exempting Brookdale from the special use permit process for individual tenants. ACTION RECOMMENDING DRAFTING OF AN ORDINACE AMENDMENT TO EXEMPT TENANTS WITHIN A SHOPPING MALL OVER 250,000 SQ. FT. OF GROSS FLOOR AREA FROM SPECIAL USE PERMIT STATUS There was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to 7 -25 -85 -2- i r recommend to the City Council the adoption of an ordinance to exempt tenants within a shopping mall of over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area from special use permit status and directing staff to prepare such an ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Nalecki, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Landscaping Plan for the Shingle Creek Business Center The Planner then reviewed with the Planning Commission at some length the proposed landscape improvements to the industrial buildings within in the Shingle Creek Business Center. He r evi ewed lans for the S ec. 1�4 building, the p S 10 P �, Sp building, and Shingle Creek Plaza II. He pointed out that Lombard Properties, the developer of these projects, wishes to increase the landscaping around these buildings in order to attract the best possible tenants. He noted the addition of trees in greenstrip areas and parking lot delineators. He also pointed out large pedestrian access areas to major entrances to the buildings. The Planner also reviewed with the Commission some ideas for signery which had been conveyed by the landscape architect for the project. He stated that Lombard wished to have common identification sign or the Shingle Creek Business Center that would not be allowed under current ordinance because it would constitute an off -site sign. He also stated that Lombard Properties is considering i p d individual freestanding signs � � for g tenants within the buildings, which would also not be permitted under the current Sign Ordinance. The Planning Commission generally expressed their support for the landscape improvements proposed by Lombard. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Chairman. Pro tem 7 -25 -85 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet - Application No. 85017 Applicant: Arby's Location: 1341 Brookdale Center Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a convenience food restaurant in the Brookdale Mall. The mall is bounded by County Road 10 on the north, by the Ground Round Restaurant, the old Daytons Garden and Oasis Petroleum gas station on the east, by Highway 100 on the southeast, and by Xerxes Avenue North on the west. The mall is zoned C2 and convenience food restaurants are a special use in the C2 zoning district. They are not allowed to abut R1, R2 or R3 zoned property at a property line or a street line. The applicant has submitted a floor plan for the tenant space located where the old Brothers Restaurant was. It shows 138 seat it s. Retail centers t s are allowed to have u to 1 0 0 of their ear gross floor area devoted to restaurant use without requiring additional - parking based on the restaurant formula. With the new Arby's, the total floor space devoted to restaurant use in Brookdale will be 23,093 sq. ft., approximately 2.3% of the total gross floor area of the center. Therefore, no additional parking is required for the proposed restaurant. The applicant has submitted no letter addressing the Standards for a Special Use Permit. However, in light of the location of the proposed use, staff see no conflict with the special use standards. Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7 -25 -85 q. // b MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager nn,- 11 FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectiair . t DATE: August 1, 1985 SUBJECT: License Fees for Amusement Devices' You have requested me to provide you with a report . regarding license fees for amuse - ment devices in response to Theisen Vending Company's pending request for a reduc- tion in such fees. As you will recall, the City Council on May 24, 1982 adopted Ordinance No. 82 -5 which established various regulations and a system of licensing for amusement devices. Those provisions became effective on June 5, 1982. Fees were established as follows: Amusement Device Operator License - $50.00 per year per machine (Kiddie Rides - $10.00 per year per ride) Amusement Device Vendor - $150.00 per year. Much discussion and deliberation was undertaken by the City Council at that time before the City Council arrived at the appropriate fees. Attached is a copy of my May 21, 1982 memo to you relating primarily to the matter of licensing fees. That memorandum contains two license fee surveys; a report from Gary Shallcross regarding an analysis of the costs for administering the licensing ordinance; and a letter and attachments from Steve Nelson of the Lynbrook Bowl outlining the Chamber of Commerce recommendation for a $40.00 per machine annual license fee. As the May 21, 1982 memo indicates, a conservative approach would dictate a fee of at least $50.00 per machine per year as appropriate, but it was also believed that a $75.00 per machine annual fee could be justified at that time as well I feel the information provided in Mr.Shallcross's analysis is applicable today with various adjustments to make the amounts reflective of 1985 costs. I have also attached copies of the most recent Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Municipal Fee Survey relating to amusement and commercial recreation license fees for community comparisons. Approximately 43 municipalities license amusement devices, 13 of which have higher license fees than Brooklyn Center, 24 of which are lower than Brooklyn Center, 4 of which are same and 2 of which cannot be determined whether their fees are higher or lower than Brooklyn Center's. Revenue from amusement device licenses since 1982 is as follows: 1982 - $9,951.00 1983 - 13,735.00 1984 - 11,557.00 1985 - 4,726.00 (through June) w Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Page 2 August 1, 1985 It is anticipated that 1986 revenues, based on current license fees and trends,will be approximately $7,000.00. I believe that our current license fees for amusement device operators, vendors and kiddie rides can be justified and are appropriate. Consideration is also being given to increasing these fees for 1986 as part of a general overall adjustment in all license fees. mlg �r MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectib DATE: May 21, 1982 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Regulating and Licensing Amusement Devices On May 24, 1982 the City Council will be considering and holding a public hearing on two ordinance amendments involving the regulation and licensing of amusement devices. These amendments had a first reading on April 26, 1982 at which time the City Council accepted comments on the amendments from two interested parties. Generally, their comments were favorable regarding the proposed regulations but were negative regarding the proposed license fees. It was stated that the proposed $75 per machine for an operator's license was almost double that of the Metro area. I believe the City of Minneapolis fee of $37 per machine was quoted as a standard. I had the opportunity to meet on.May 6, 1982 with a Chamber of Commerce committee formed to review the ordinance amendments and review and discuss this matter with them. Most of the discussion centered around the proposed fees and, in my opinion, there was little objection to the other aspects of the ordinance amendments. I feel a legitimate point was raised during that meeting regarding the proposed investigation - fee. The point being that establishments holding liquor and beer licenses have already submitted to extensive background investigations (and paid an investigation fee) relating to those licenses and should, therefore, not be required to pay an additional investigation fee. I concur with the above logic and would offer, as a matter of poiicy, a recommendation that any establishment having already been investigated by the Police Department for some other license and having paid an appropriate investi- gation fee not be charged an additional investigation fee. Other points have been raised regarding the comparison of the proposed fees with that of other communities. A copy of a survey of amusement device license fees which was done by the staff is attached with this report. This is the same survey that is part of my April 23, 1982 memo. Also attached is a corrected copy of a license fee survey given me by Norm Pink of Advanced Carter which is the basis for his claim that our proposed fee is almost twice the average in the Metro area. The average per machine license cost when combining the two surveys is $53.94. I feel that it is imperative to point out that the $37 per machine license cost given for the City of Minneapolis does not reflect the total cost charged by that community. Attached is a copy of the schedule for amusement device fees quoted to us by the City of Minneapolis. We have calculated a cost per machine for each of the five categories listed by the City of Minneapolis which is shown in parenthesis. Also on the same, attachment is the amusement device license costs for the four surrounding cotnnunities that license amusement devices given 10 machines at a particular location. The average cost in the four communities in such a case would be $68.75 per machine. To further evaluate the proposed fees we have attempted to analyze the City costs for • administering the ordinance. Attached is a copy of a memo from Gary Shallcross to myself regarding such a breakdown. I must point out that our analysis is guess work to a great extent, but accurately reflects the associated costs for hourly rates and benefits for employees, mileage costs, publication costs, building costs, etc. The most difficult aspect in this analysis is projecting the time spent on the admini- stration and enforcement of this ordinance. It is my opinion that the costs reflect City costs for administration on a routine basis with little or no enforcement - problems. Any complications or problems relating to license review and enforcement would obviously add to the number of hours spent by the staff in processing such applications. Memo Page 2 As noted in Gary's memo, a conservative estimation of the cost for the City would be approximately $34.64 per machine. I would emphasize that an error factor of 50% either way should be allowed for in evaluating this study. Steve Nelson of the Lynbrook Bowl has also submitted a memo on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce committee recommending $40 per machine as a license fee. He has also supplied estimated City cost information. The bottom line of the two cost related studies,even though they are estimates are not far apart. It is the staff's feeling that a very conservative approach would dictate a fee of at least $50 per machine as a appropriate fee. If this amount is used as abase for a fee, careful consideration must be given to regularly changing and adjusting this fee based on inflation. It is our feeling as well that the $75 per machine fee originally proposed can also be justified taking into consideration all the costs cited, a comparison of other community fees and the realization that license fees generally are not reviewed on an annual basis and are'only adjusted approximately every five years.; Therefore, we would continue to support the fees as proposed in the ordinance amendment. 1% , iu:;ement D:vice License Foe Survey 4 -21 -82 City Fee /Comments New Hope -6 machines or less -- $100.00 /Machine -7 or more - $600.00 minimum -over 6 machines -'$50.00/Machine Bloomington - $39.00 each with City Council approval -over 6 machines an arcane, then must go thru =anning Commission and City Council (Special Use) Anoka - $50.00 /Machine -if arcade, license fee is $300'.00 /Yr. plus $150.00 for investigation fee (not more than 10 machines allowed) - Require an officer to be on premises at all times; 300' from any church Crystal - - $104.50 /Machine /yr. (Workman's Comp. required) -if over 10 machines $3,000.00 for an amusement center license (must be in shopping center), $30.00 /Machine over 30 machines (30 machines for $3000.00) Columbia Heights - - $50.00 /Machine - for any number -9 or more is arcade - $500.00 plus a $5,000.00 bond for arcade license Minnetonka - $11.00 /Machine - Certificate of Insurance required -- Hopkins - - $75.00 /Machine approved by City Council Richfield - - $65.00 /Machine /Yr. -no investigation fee - $1,00C.00 bond; $200.00 for arcade White Bear Lake - - $85.00 /Machine /Yr. approved by City Council Roseville - - $50.00 /Machine /Yr. -Game room license is $100.00 (more than 50% receipts from games) - Amusement place $25.00 - $300.00 investigation fee Edina - - $ 25.00 /Mechanical amusement device (video) - $100.00 /Pinball - require insurance Maplewood _ - $10.00 per location plus $5.00 per device - arcade is a Special Use arcade =6 . or more games if the primary use rec Survey 4- 21 -02. City Fee /Corvrents --Brooklyn Park - - $35.00 /Machine arcade license is $400.00 Robbinsdale - - $50.00 /Machine /Yr. -kiddy ridos $25.00 - minors can't use machines, unless meet a number of requirements - approved by City Council Eden Prairie - $150.00 /Machine - up to 10 machines - over-10 machines - 1 500.0 $ 0 plus $5.00 P er machine Survey high - $150.00 /Machine low - $ 5.00 /biachine avg. - $59.53 e P "`7 L -2- Lac ".5ff A►,ic� �b�T � � v � ►� - .l1lJrv1 Mir" N ii.:� �� Q2o- ��xrxr+(_ RE 000s _ UL �}o°° 400°° N �- r �U v U VA LL. --UL VA LL Fiaar NO _ _ t - r - - - - -• -- - •- - - -- ---- - - - - - - -- —• -- Iz t0 •fi cL � N o _3 — ----- — •.� r - I — �� �- _ lo*Y+Mv_�utT1tS l_E'?tC4l}�?�!�o�,� - �r�Ut ► CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AMUSEMENT DEVICE FEES* 0 - 4 machines $123 + $37 /machine (3 machines = $78 /machine) 5 - 9 machines - $242 + $37 /machine (7 machines = $71.57 /machine) 10 -.19 machines $482 + $37 /machine (15 machines = $69.13 /machine) 20 - 30 machines $721 + $37 /machine (25 machines = $65.84 /machine) 31 or over - $961 + $37 /machine (50 machines $56.22 /machine) *Moratorium to end of June LICENSE FEE FOR 10 MACHINES IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES Minneapolis = $852 Crystal = $1,045 Robbinsdale _ $500 Average of Four Communities = $686.75 $68.75 /machine Brooklyn Park $350 MEMORANDUM TO: Ron, Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Cost of Administering Amusement Device Ordinance DATE: May 20, 1982 You have asked for a compilation of those costs associated with administration of the proposed amusement device ordinance and other City costs related to amusement devices generally. I have decided to break these costs down into four categories: 1) direct recurring; 2) indirect recurring; 3) direct nonrecurring; 4) indirect nonrecurring. I must add, before going any further, that the numbers generated are approximations only. As with all government services involving relations with the public, license administr- ation is an inexact science with a potentially wide variation�in time spent per license. Calculations assume 15 locations in the City with 250 machines. Office space is calculated by taking the proportion of total staff time in the building (566 man hours, including administrative overhead, out of 81 FTE) and multiplying by 0 4,500 sq. ft. (the area of the bldg.) at $12 /yr. /sq'. ft. Auto use is estimated at $.40/mi and trips are expected to average 3 miles. Labor costs assume maximum salaries and fringe benefits for the various postions involved. Direct Recurring Direct recurring costs are those which are directly related to the processing of a license-a and which recur on a yearly or less than - yearly bass. These include: - Receiving applications (1 hour clerk per 10 machines per year). Application reviewed by Planning and Inspections for location /type of use (4 hr. Planning Director per location per year). Police review of application. (excluding background investigation covered under separate fee) ) Check by �- Y Lindsay per Y 4 location ( P tion per year). Inspection by Code Enforcement Officer of new machines (z hr. per machine license per year). •Inspection reports (2 hr. per mach. lic. per year C -f -O 2 hr. /mach: lic./ yr.,clerk). Submittal to City Council for approval (1/5 hr. Administrative Assistant per location per year). - Issuance of license (2 hr. clerical per location per year) . - Mailing form letters (2 per location /year 4 hrs. clerical time /yr.). - Periodic inspections of premises 2 per location /yr (1 hr. C -6 -0 /location /yr.). Total Direct Recurring Costs: Staff time $ 4302.50 Office space(includes 985.00 (@ $9 /s.f. on pro -rated basis) utilities) Postage 6.00 Auto use 180.00 trips /location /yr. @ 3 mi. per trip) Subtotal $ 5473.50 Admin_ Overhead 500.0 Total $ 5973.50 Indirect Recurrin Indirect recurring costs are those costs which arise because of the use of games or the availability of games, but are not directly involved in the processing of an amusement device license application. These include: - Police response to complaint calls (1 hr. /loc. /yr. /Police Officer) Public inquiry regarding ordinance requirements (2 hr. /loc. /yr., Police Chief or Planning Director) Indirect Recurring Costs: Auto use $ 36.00 (2 trips /loc. /yr. Police response 273.16 Public Inquiry 206.29 Tota $ 515.45 -2- Direct Nonrecurring Direct nonrecurring costs are those expenses incurred in the initial 1.start up of the licensing of amusement devices which will � 11 not recur until the ordinance is - reexamined perhaps 5 years. These costs could conceivably include: Compiling a list of machine locations and sending notices and ordinance requirements to operators and vendors (4 hrs. clerical). Preparation of form letters notifying operators and vendors of ordinance requirements (2 hrs.Administrative II). - Development of the ordinance (50 hrs. Planning Director, 50 hrs. Planning Assistant; 5 hrs. City Attorney; 5 hrs. Police Chief; 5 hrs. City Manger; 20 hrs. Clerk III). - Research on license fees (Planning Director 10 hrs.; Planning Assistant 15 hrs.). -Printing osts for licenses and 9 application forms. • Ordinance publication costs ($213.27) Initial paperwork 68.04 Ord. devlopment & research 3,210.00 Printing costs for license 60.00 Publication costs 213.27 $ 3,541.31 Amortized over 5 yrs. $708.26/yr. Indirect Nonrecurring Indirect nonrecurring are expenses which 9 h�ch p have been incurred in the P rocess of . regulating and policing establishments with amusement devices during the time the City had no ordinance covering amusement devices. They are not related directly to the preparation or enforcement of the City's.proposed ordinance and probably should not be included in the cost of amusement device licenses. They are part of the cost of -3- "learning our lesson" about amusement devices, costs which lead to the proposed ordinance. They include: Police response to complaints arising from past game operations (50 incidents @ $25 /incident = $1250. -Auto expense (50 x 3 mi. x .40 = $60.00) Administrative time (200 hrs. at $30 /hr. $6000). Total Cost = $7310.00 Amortized over 5yrs. $7,287.50/5 = $1462.00/yr. Total Costs /Year Compiling the foregoing costs on an annualized basis and spread over an estimated 250 machines results in the following: Type of Cost Cost /Yr. Cost /Yr. /Machine Direct Recurring $'5973.50 $22 2 3.91 Indirect Recurring 515.45 2.06 Direct Nonrecurring 08.2 2. 9 6 83 Indirect Nonrecurring 1462.00 5.84 Total + $.8659.21 $ 34.64 As can be seen, the proposed fee of $75 /machine is more than twice the projected cost of regulating and policing amusement devices within the City of Brooklyn Center. The figures projected allow for a reasonable amount of staff time spent on normal ordinance administration and factor in the likelihood that about once in five years, there is likely to be a problem operation that generates significant police response time and administrative headaches. Obviously, there may be more costs if problems arise on a more regular basis. The ordinance, however, has been designed to minimize the likeli- hood of problem operations. Considering that we know very little about what the actual cost of ordinance administration is likely to be, I would allow for an error factor of as much as 50% either way. A conservative approach would certainly dictate P y a fee of at least $50.00. Taking inflation into account migh justify even higher fees, up to the $75 proposed. A fee of more than $75 does not seem justifiable based on the costs t hat have been projected. -4- A.. �'�'� E$ , 561.4240 • 63;7 JC.2TN LILAC DRIVE • MINN. • MINNEAPOLIS, h11h 55430, 7 Na, 19, 198 2 ;): MMOKLYN CENTFR CITY COUNCIL Fi3C1 CITY VUSEf.:F�T DEVICE OVTOATORS 3 PROP0$ED *;LJSEGFhT DEVICE LICENSE FEE /tt a rrrcting sponsored by the Brooklyn Centr;r Chamber of Commerce, we discussed ' the proposed ordinance and licenso Frye for an;u7 device oper;:;tors in the City of Brooklyn Center. With our rabidly riving cost of operation and cantinued increased taxation, we this mattes with grave concern Feel the ordinance, as dratun, 'i)rf ^ ?.'.z the-city of Brooklyn Center the ..,rut n n A y _ _ ction - � _. and cont rols n roles it nee��. �.,� , c,e. ,carve ,. � rr,��e � ver ,the � o .. cc t f . i , i Ie reat . _n this ,, s ordina per; <- -,, _ ., y rr�., t a . �- h r 1 '] , n �xce ,s of what i., n._eded, fi, r city there are :,;,pro�l�, � ?L'„ -'.Al errant devices and 13 vendors. At 7.tn currently irroPe,ed thif, �o; 1..1 ; n rr , ;e an it +come to the city the �- ear of 321,7 and each lP;:r threaft_:•r a suci of $16,950. (See y r h:ti detail. ) - i s PfI on information gathered, we r-,t1, n thy, ' cost to the city to licE:nse all cu .:ment devices to be S7,641.2o. ise - of this information we would Pr�r,DsE'. to you that you consider Lhr olloU:inrj: 1. License Fee: $40 per rit,chinr' 2. Liconso Fee: $150 per vt ridor 3. Investigation, Fr:e : i:100 .Ji :re applicable This would generate an incomrr of °� ^. , ;rJ ta. th;, City of Brooklyn Center. As you -es, this would allow np praxis ;t. a•� Pf 1 y a2, l0U addition onal tc our in es v t _ ve ., r. y 9 a 1 , or unforseen r.,<�Lr,�cr:; ,�- -� e C o . !" :.c�Tmittee will be prt.:.ent r ur Vu 2 <i rh u;oestirg to answer any' que:;tions .� ..�y have. Yuur corsidoL.ai,i m it L master is yre atly appreciated., Sincerely, Steven J. Nelson, President LYNCROOK 80WL . ma e m, ". :4;'Ic�i,,%t�c�+' LTCfT2SF. FED INCOrF - p EITY OF T'! ?OnKLti UNTrR 'ol FIRST YrARQS P,1CMIF 200 r`nchinc -.n 575.00 per machine 1 . � .,, coy. no 13 Venr;Oro � ; 150.00 per vendor t,950.00 Investigative fee of 35 Cperntovo '+1r'n.nn Aach 3 SOO.OD Inver }ip I t ivo fle of 1 Uanrinr• "'1 "rl.n Bch 1OO.OfJ TOTAL FIRST YEARS IP1COr'E 21:,750.00 F)F 'ON YEARIS T NrrriF 200 Vpchines 1 24 'x75.00 per machine � 15 , 000.00 13 Vendors '5150.00 per vender 1,950.00 $ 15, 950.00 EXPENSE TO CITY OF PROOKLYri C" r T 9 FOR PRf!POSFD LICr%SIPlC .. I. Code Enforcement Officer 1,222.20 ` (140 Hours r 58.73 per hour) 2. Secretary f Office Expense 2,619.00 (300 Hours a 18.73 per hour) 7. r ^n?ral Insp —clAon and Tr.nn--oortntirn, Transportation Expenses and Police'Ca11,, 4.000.00 3 7,841.20 i.! ,, _AMUSEMEN OhMiERC I AL RECREAT 10 NAM1W CITY .1983 AFTON ANOKA APPLE WILY BAYPORT BLOOMINGTON BROOKLYN CENT POPULATION 2,550 15.634 21 818 2 932 81 ER 831 31 230 1. Amusement Center - $300 - -- 2. Billiard /Pool Table - $25 ea. /yr. -- 320 /establish. S25 /table 3. Bingo - -- State has taken $50 $110/1st da m Y State has taken over � $ $25 per year / 8.50 ea. addt'1 over 4. Bowling Alley - -- per lane - -- - -- $72 /1st 10 lanes S10 /lane $5.50 ea. addt'1 S. Carnival /Circus $50 /day $75 special use permit - -- - -- - -- - 6. Coin Operated Devices Entertain. $60 ea. /yr. depends on # S39 /ea.; A. Video Devices of devices Antique mach. Q p s ;o $60/ r. / ±dc are $1 ' 7. Gambling: Combination Repealed $50 $350 State regulation B. Paddlewheel -- See Bingo $225 C. Raffle - -- See Bingo $225 D. Ti Aboard - -- See Bingo $225 E. Ticket Jars/ - -- -- Pull Tabs - S. Theater A. Indoor - -- $100 - -- - -- $80 B. Outdoor - -- $100 - -- - -- s14o - 9. Dances /Cabarets -- $15 /dance $200 - -- Public -S80 10. Roller Skating & - -- - -- --- - -- Arenas (Private) $200 - -- • II. AMUSEMENT A ANOL r4CIAL RECREATION 9 1 NAME OPWTY BROOKLYN PARK BURNSVILLE CHAMF .!. CHANHASSEN CHASKA COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COON RAPIDS POPULATION 43,332 35,674 — 6,359 8,346 20,029 35,826 1. Amusement Center $450 - -_- $25 - -- Arcade: $500, plus $25 350 /machine 2. Billiard/Pool Table $40 - -- included in - - 540 /table /year $50 amusement 5100 /yr. license 3. Bingo $25; 5200 /yr. $50 for 3- $50 $25 State regulation --- $100 + day event S1 /session 4. Bowling Alley - -- -- $50 -- 335 /1st alley $10 $10 ea, addt l 5. Carnival /Circus 5150 /day 525 /day $25 350 /1st day 510 /ride $10 ea.addt'l $200 max. 6. Coin Operated Devices 540 /yr. - -- $25 $25 540 /mach, /year - , - -- A. Video 340 /yr. $100 525 540 /mach. /year $50 ea. - -- 7. Gambling: Combination $100/;10 even 3255 Invest. Fee $50 B. Paddlewheel $25 5100 /yr.; $50 to of State $50 C. Raffle $25 $50 for 3 $50 of of regulation $50 D. Tipboard $25 day event $50 to $50 E. Ticket Jars/ $50 $50 Pull Tabs 8. Theater A. Indoor $225 5100 /screen $50 - -- - -- $200 $175 B. Outdoor $450 3100 /screen - -- - -- - -- $225 $175 , $2 addt "I 9. Dances /Cabarets - -- - -- -- - -- - -- $100 3120 /year + 32 /dance 10. Roller Skating & - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- Arenas (Private) II. AMUSEMENT ERCIAL RECREATION NAME 0 CITY COTTAGE GROVE CRYSTAL DEt, `:VEN EACAN 16 POPULATION 18 994 EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA 25 543 �1r,16 20,700 EXCELSIOR 16 263 46 073 2 1. Amusement Center - -- $3,000 + $30 ea. machine over 30 j :$2:5/machine 2. Billiard /Pool Table 335 /table $10.50 /table -_- 3. Bingo State $30,25/1st occasion - - -- i S10 1 or 2 day $5.50 ea. addt'1 S25 4. Bowling Alley $35 $10.50 /lane - -- CUP where req'd. -- :$10:/Iane Insurance plus 5. Carnival /Circus - -- 371.50 /1st day - $100 $18.75 ea. addt'1 - -- 6. Coin Operated Devices $35 $104.50 ea. - -- 3 _ $25 $25 $25 + $5 /mach. A. Video $35 $104.50 ea. - -- 15 - $200 ___ 15+ - $400 7. Gambling: Combination •375 $25 5300 B. Paddlewheel -_ $10 $25 C. Raffle - -- D. Tipboard $10 $25 E. Ticket Jars/ ___ $10 $25 Pull Tabs $10 $25 8. Theater A. Indoor $35 $363 - -- . -- $200 3100. B. Outdoor $35 $363 - -- ..__ $300 - 9. Dances /Cabarets Permit: 33 /date $363 License: 3500/ ear - - 3 10. Roller Skating & 335 $363 Arenas (Private) - -- il. AMUSEMEN MMERCIAL RECREATION _NAMWW CITY FALCON HEIGHTS FRIDLEY GOLDEN VALLEY GREENWOOD HASTINGS POPULATION 5 291 30 228 22 775 HOPKINS INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 653 12 $27 15,336 17 171 1. Amusement Center $15 /machine $50 -- - -- S90 /device 2. Billiard /Pool Table S10 -first table $40 first table $35 $85 under 6 $5 after $10 ea. addt'1 $10 tables; $10 _ each addt'l 3. Bingo $25 - -- " $10 5175 /year $50 4. Bowling Alley S10 /lane $40 plus S10 /lane 110 /lane S10 /lane S15 /lane $25 S. Carnival/Circus --- app. fee plus 575 /day - -- 6. Coin Operated Devices $15 $50 - -- - -- $90 A. Video S25 -first 5 mach. $50 - -- 115 after $90 7. Gambling: Combination B. Paddlewheel $25 -- $300 $175 $50 C. Raffle $25 D. Tipboard $25 E. Ticket Jars / $25 Pull Tabs 8. Theater A. Indoor - -- - -- - -- $50 $375 -700 seats; --- B. Outdoor - -- $800 -- - less 700 -5170 -- $100 9. Dances /Cabarets $10 $150 $100 10. Roller Skating & - -- i Arenas (Private) " "" --- $50 I 11. AMUSEMEN OMMERCIAL RECREATION NAM F CITY MI 38,683 KA MOUND 38 MOUNDS VIEW NEW BRIGHTON NEW HOPE NEWPORT NORTH ST. PAUI POPULATION 683 9 280 12 593 23,269 23,087 3,323 11,921 1. Amusement Center - -- $100 $100 /yr. Set by council - - -- $loo /yr. 2. Billiard /Pool Table $5.50 /table S55 /min. S10 /table - -- - -- -- - $10 /yr. 3. Bingo - -- $50 /15t time; ° "" $100 /annual $S ea. addt'1 ea. add S15 + t' $10 /session ' t'1 S25 /day 4. Bowling Alley $11 /lane $10 /lane $10 /lane - -- $10 /lane/ ear - -- y S10 /lane /yr. 5. Carnival /Circus - -- varies with $100 1st day - -- $25 ea. separate " "" $50 length of stay $15 ea. addt'1 lace of o eration " 6. Coin Operated Devices $11 $10 ea. $50 /mach. /yr. $12S - $600 $100/6 mach., over $25 $10 e: A. Video $11 $25 games of - -- 6 - $600 + $50 /mach. $25 skill 7. Gambling; Combination - -- $75 $100 /event $25 B. Paddlewheel $15 - -- depends on number - -- - S10 /session C. Raffle $15 - -- of prizes or - - S10 ea. /$50 yr. D. Tipboard $15 - devices - -- 310 ea. /S50 yr. E. Ticket Jars/ - - Pull Tabs " -- $10 ea. /$50 yr. 0- 300 -$240; 301- 8. Theater 500 -$300; 501-700 - A. indoor $360; 701- 1000 -$420 - -- - -- -" B. Outdoor $220 --- - $S $200/yr. -$25 /day 9. Dances /Cabarets $110 Dinner dancing- $200 $100 - - -- $750/ r.- $100 /mo - -- 10. Roller Skating b $110 - -- - -- $100 Arenas (Private) - -- - -- $100 11. AMUSEMENT MERCIAL RECREATION NAME CITY 1983 1983 56 ROBBINSDALE ROSEMOUNT ROSEVILLE ST. ANTHONY ST FRANCIS ST. LOUIS PARK POPULATION 14 5 083. 35.820 7,981 . 1,184 42,931 1. Amusement Center - -- - -- $150 $150 + $100 S50 /machine -- invest. fee + $50 er mach. 2. Billiard /Pool Table 510 /table - -- $65 first table _ 15 ea. addt'1 512 /table Hall: $200+ $15 S each table 3. Bingo 5150 /year $100 $200 over 3 times - -_ 55 /occas. $25 or $5 $250 $25 less than 3 p er event 4. Bowling Alley S10 /alley -- $65 first alley 512.50 /lane -- S15 /lane S50 /multiple perf. $15 ea. addt'l S. Carnival /Circus S25 /single perf. _ -_ _- S50 /day + 525 /day - -- 5200 /day $50 (Kiddie 6. Coin Operated Devices rides $25) S12 /machine S60 $150 + $100 550 /machine invest. fee + A. Video $50 S12 /machine $60 ___ S12 /mach. $50 per mach. 7. Gambling: Combination B. Paddlewheel $200 or S25 /single - -- $200 _ "" $25/yr. 5130 /year or C. Raffle $200 or S25 /single $100 $200 or 530 /event - -- $5 D. Tipboard $200 or S25 /single $100 $200 E. Ticket Jars/ $200 or S25 /single --- _ -_ Pull Tabs " "- Per event 8. Theater A. Indoor $200 - -- 560 /screen B. Outdoor $200 - -- _ -- - -- $ 300 -5600 as per * of seats 9. Dances /Cabarets 51,000 /yr. 510 /day - -- $100 - -- - -- $150 (1 day only) 10. Roller Skating 6 - -- - -- $50 Arenas (Private) -- •- $750 ti 11. AMUSEMENT 6 ERCIAL RECREATION 1963 83` f 64 NAME ant ITY SPRING PARK STILLWATER AYZATA WOODBURY WOODLAND POPULATION 1,465 12,290 3,621 10,297 526 1. Amusement Center - -• - -- $25 /game $250 2. Billiard /Pool Table - -- - -- `$25 /1st table - -_ $10 ea. addt'1 3. Bingo - -- -- $50 $100 i 4. Bowling Alley - -- - -- $25 /1st alley $1 ea. ad dt'1 5. Carnival /Circus - -- - -- $100 /day $50 initial cost $20 /renewal 6. Coin Operated Devices $37.40 - -- $25 /game $60 A. Video $25 /game $60 7. Gambling: Combination $100 B. 'Paddlewheel - -- $25 - -- $25 C. Raffle -•- $25 - -- S25 D. Tipboard - -- $25 - -- $25 E. Ticket Jars/ - -- I - -- $ 25 Pull Tabs 8. Theater A. Indoor -- - $100 B. Outdoor -- - -- 9. Dances /Cabarets - -- - - -- - -- 10. Roller Skating & Arenas (Private) - j Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 12, 1985 AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle * reen Mill 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. round Round Restaurant 2545 County Rd. 10 Show Biz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. p isf of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR Dahlco Music 119 State Street C i f of Police FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Baskin Robbins Brookdale Center Canteen Corporation 6300 Penn Ave. S. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Interstate United 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Q QJV`Qj. -w� Sanitarian GARBAGE & REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE Minneapolis Hide & Tallow P.O. Box 12547 Waste Control 95 W. Ivy Street Woodlake Sanitary Service 4000 Hamel Rd. m Sanitarian f ID WCHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Northeast Sheet Metal, Inc. 4347 Central Ave. NE St. Marie Sheet Metal 7940 Spring Lk. Park Blvd. e lf_ Buildihd Official - PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Minnesota Viking Food Service 5200 W. 74th St. North France Health Club 4001 Lakebreeze Ave. Sanitarian SIGN HANGERS LICENSE , Signcrafters Outdoor Display, Inc. 7775 Main St. NE Build Official GENERAL APPROVAL: Gera inter, Gfty Clerk