Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 01-27 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JANUARY 27, 1986 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 - December 30, 1985 - Regular Session * 7. Performance Bond Release: a. Earle Brown Farm Estates (John DeVries) 8. Resolutions: *a. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Project No. 1985 -20, Contract 1985 -M (Installation of Traffic Control Signal Systems on Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive and at Summit 'Drive) *b. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Project No. 1986 -02, Contract 1986 -B (Police Department Remodeling - Phase II) * c. Establishing Revised Bid Opening Date for Project No. 1985 -23," Contract 1986 -C (Centerbrook Golf Course) d. Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Reconstruction Projects in 1986 * e. Approving and Authorizing Execution of Subdivision Agreement for Dee Welty Addition Xerxes Avenue and I -694• * f. Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Four (4) Four -Door Police Patrol Sedans * g. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) 33,000 GVW Cab and Chassis -This is an approved item from the 1986 Street Maintenance Budget. * h. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for Delivery of One (1) Four -Wheel Utility Vehicle This is an approved item from the 1986 Parks Maintenance Budget. i. Amending the 1986 General Fund Budget CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- January 27, 1986 9. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 86001 submitted by Uhde /Nelson requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land which is the site of the 7100 Corporate Plaza Office development at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its January 16, 1986 meeting. 10. Ordinances: (8:00 p.m.) a. Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs -This item was first read on December 30, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 9, 1986 and January 16, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The public hearing was opened at the January 13, 1986 meeting and continued to this evening. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. b. Vacating an Easement in Lot 2, Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota -This item was first read on December 30, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 9, 1986 and January 16, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The public hearing was opened at the January 13, 1986 meeting and continued to this evening. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. c. Amending Chapter 34 Regarding Wall Signs for Enclosed Shopping Malls -This item was first read on December 30, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on January 9, 1986 and January 16, 1986, and is offered this evening for a second reading. The public hearing was opened at the January 13, 1986 meeting and continued to this evening. This item requires a 4/5 vote by the Council. 11. Discussion Item: a. Year 2000 Report - Council to review implementation dates of various projects. b. Payment of One Sewer Backup Claim c. Agreement between the City and Earle Brown Days, Inc. d. Umbrella Insurance Quotation 12. Consideration of Specified Licenses: a. On -sale Nonintoxicating Liquor License - ShowBiz Pizza *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment 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 DECEMBER 30, 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 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Finance Director Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney John Dean, and Deputy City Clerk Geralyn Barone. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Theis. 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. Councilmember Hawes requested that items 12e, 12m, and 12o be removed and Councilmember Lhotka requested that items 12a and 12c be removed from the Consent Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DECEMBER 11, 1985 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the December 11, 1985 special session of the City Council as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENTS There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following appointments effective January 1, 1986: a. Housing Commission - Ron Turner, Dolores Hastings, and Ray Haroldson for reappointment to three -year terms. b. Human Rights Commission - Mary Ellen Rabine and Jayne Kuhar (Chairperson) for reappointment to three -year terms; the appointment of Thomas Slupske to a one -year term. C. Park & Recreation Commission - Carl Manson and Dave Skeels for reappointment to three -year terms. d. Planning Commission - Molly Malecki, Ann Wallerstedt, Michael Nelson, and Carl Sandstrom for reappointment to two -year terms. 12 -30 -85 -1- 1 e. Weed Inspector - Brad Hoffman for reappointment to one -year term. The motion passed unanimously. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, SHINGLE CREEK CENTER SECOND ADDITION There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the final plat of the Shingle Creek Center Second Addition. The motion passed unanimously. " PROCLAMATION Councilmember Theis introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption: DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 AS UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DAY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by Councilmember Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 85 -239 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1985 GENERAL FUND BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -240 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FROM THE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -241 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1985 -K STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1985 -12, 1985-13-AND 1985 -14 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -242 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING, PHASE II (PROJECT NO. 1986 -02, CONTRACT 1986 -B) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. 12 -30 -85 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 85 -2 1 43 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WATER ASSESSMENT RATES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1986 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -244 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 9, 1985 - REGULAR SESSION Councilmember Hawes pointed out that on page 13 of the December 9, 1985 City Council minutes Councilmember Lhotka's name had been omitted from the vote on the Ground Round Class B liquor license. He asked that the minutes be corrected to show that Councilmember Lhotka voted in favor of the motion. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the December 9, 1985 minutes of the City Council as corrected. The motion passed. Councilmember Scott abstained from voting as she was not present at the December 9, 1985 meeting. PRESENTATION BY SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT The City Manager introduced Mr. Marty Jessen of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District. Mr. Jessen presented a history and background of the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District and reviewed the current budget and mill levy. He then showed a slide presentation about the park district. APPOINTMENTS TO MISSISSIPPI PARK CORRIDOR STUDY COMMISSION The City Manager stated that two members from the City will be appointed to the Mississippi Park Corridor Study Commission, and noted that Councilmember Lhotka had expressed interest in serving on this commission. Councilmember Scott said that she is also interested in serving on the commission. Councilmember Hawes asked if Bud Sorenson, Chairman of the.Park & Recreation Commission, had been contacted regarding possible participation with this commission. The City Manager noted that at this time, it is preferable that a City Councilmember serve on the commission rather than a City Commissioner. Councilmember Theis said he feels it would be important for the City Manager to serve on this commission, and the City Manager noted that he could attend the meetings and represent one of the appointed members in their absence. The City Manager asked when the commission will meet, and Mr. Jessen of the Hennepin County Park Reserve District stated that an official schedule had not been set at this time, but that the meetings would probably convene about 3:00 P.m. on the meeting dates. Councilmember Lhotka withdrew his request to serve on the commission because it would be difficult for him to attend the meetings at that time. -There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to 12 -30 -85 -3- { appoint Councilmember Scott and the City Manager to serve on the Mississippi Park Corridor Study Commission. Councilmember Theis requested that he receive eceive mailin s of an agendas and related g Y information from the commission and asked to serve as a substitute if Councilmember Scott or the City Manager are not able to attend the meetings. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion, the motion passed unanimously. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT (CONTINUED) There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Y Scott to appoint Barbara Jensen to the Brooklyn Center Housing Commission for a three -year term. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BOND PROGRAM (EARLE BROWN COMMONS PROJECT UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462 AS AMENDED The City Manager noted that a public hearing ads been scheduled for 7;30 p.m. this evening and noted that the public hearing is one step of the process for the Earle Brown Commons Project. He added the development project is still subject to approval by the City Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on a Proposed Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Program (Earle Brown Commons Project) under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C as Amended. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Al Beisner, who proceeded to review the preliminary drawings with the City Council and discussed the proposal for the project with the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on a Proposed Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Program (Earle Brown Commons Project) under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C as Amended. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka asked if a housing bond is issued by the City. The City Manager compared a housing bond to an industrial revenue bond, noting that the housing bonds are restricted to housing projects only. He added that the same type of housing bond was used for the Brookwood project. Councilmember Lhotka asked why action is being taken by the Council at this time when development will probably not start until July of 1986. The City Manager stated that it is necessary for the investors to make arrangements for their investment process at this time. Councilmember Lhotka asked who the members of the partnership for this project are, and Mr. Beisner said that the partnership is not yet complete. He added that the ability to sell bonds is predicated upon the membership of the partnership. Councilmember Lhotka asked when the sale of the housing bonds would occur, and the City Manager stated that depending on the actions by the City Council, it is possible that the bonds can be sold in March of 1986. Councilmember Lhotka expressed concern for granting preliminary approval of this project. Councilmember Theis asked how the Metropolitan Council fits into the process, and the City Manager stated that the Metro Council reviews all similar requests to determine if they meet the Metro Council's requirements. Councilmember Theis asked if the Metro Council has veto power of projects such as the Earle Brown Commons Project, and the City Manager stated that they do have that power. Mayor Nyquist i asked why the Metro Council is involved, and the City Manager said the State of 12 -30 -85 -4- r Minnesota requires the Metro Council to review such proposals. Councilmember Theis asked if the City has the Metro Council's approval at this time, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. The City Manager and Mayor discussed the role of the Metro Council in this project. Councilmember Hawes asked how many stories the apartment building located just south of City Hall is, and asked if it is at full tenancy. The City Manager estimated that the building is approximately 12 stories in height and it is currently filled. He added that the building was not built specifically as an elderly high rise, but it has reached that point. Councilmember Hawes asked if the Brookwood project is filled, and the City Manager stated that approximately 50 of 69 units are filled. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -245 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A HOUSING AND BOND PROGRAM FOR THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS FOR THE EARLE BROWN COMMONS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF SAME TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85040 SUBMITTED BY BRIAN ZUBERT REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 152 ROOM, ALL SUITE HOTEL ON THE VACANT PARCEL OF LAND IMMEDIATELY EAST OF EARLE BROWN BOWL, SOUTH OF FREEWAY BOULEVARD The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its December 17, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Mayor and City Council to pages three and four of the December 17, 1985 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet with those minutes regarding this application. He proceeded to review the application and the major concern of the Planning Commission in recommending approval of the application. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85040 subject to 14 conditions which can be found on pages four and five of the December 17, 1985 Planning Commission minutes. After reviewing the conditions, the Director of Planning & Inspection stated that a public hearing is scheduled, notices have been sent, and a representative of the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. Councilmember Hawes asked why only four handicapped parking stalls are provided in the parking lot while there are eight handicapped units in the hotel. The Director of Planning & Inspection said the State requirement on the total number of handicapped parking stalls is based on the total number of stalls in a parking lot. He stated the hotel is not required to reserve all eight suites for handicapped persons only, and, therefore, the applicant must only provide the number of stalls required by the State (which in this case is four) . Councilmember Hawes asked "if no parking" lanes are designated on both sides of the street, and the Director of Planning & Inspection responded affirmatively. Councilmember Hawes asked if the signs are not posted for no parking lanes, whether or not the street is subject to the same parking laws as the rest of the City. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that because this is not a public street it would not be subject to the City ordinance requirements. 12 -30 -85 -5- Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85040 submitted by Brian Zubert requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 152 room, all suite hotel on the vacant parcel of land immediately east of Earle Brown Bowl, south of Freeway Boulevard. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 85040 submitted by Brian Zubert. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 85040 submitted by Brian Zubert requesting site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a 152 room, all suite hotel on the vacant parcel of land immediately east of Earle Brown Bowl, south of Freeway Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The private access road for this site and the office park to the south shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved under Application No. 85029 and signed for no parking /fire lane prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the hotel. 12 -30 -85 -6- 10. Building plans and operation of the hotel are subject to approval by the City Sanitarian with respect to the whirlpools, hot tub, sauna and lodging license and food service. 11. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 12. The plans shall be modified prior to issuance of permits to indicate: a. Relocation of handicapped parking stalls (4 in number) to the parking area west of the building as close as possible to the west entrance to the building. b. Modification of the grading and drainage plan to indicate collection of drainage in areas other than access drives to the site. 13. The Fire Marshall shall approve the number and placement of fire hydrants serving the site prior to the issuance of permits. 14. The plat of the property shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of permits. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 85041 SUBMITTED BY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HRA REQUESTING PRELIMINARY R.L.S. APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES THE EARLE BROWN FARM SITE AND RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S VACANT PARCEL AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EARLE BROWN DRIVE AND SUMMIT DRIVE The CityManager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its December 17, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection referred the Council to pages five and six of the December 17, 1985 Planning Commission minutes and the attached informational sheet on Application No. 85041 attached with those minutes. He proceeded to review the application and noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 85041 subject to the three conditions listed on page six of the December 12, 1985 Planning Commission minutes. He reviewed the three conditions and noted a public hearing is scheduled for this evening and notices have been posted. Councilmember Scott asked why' tracts C and D are necessary and why they are two separate lots. The City Manager' and the City Attorney explained why the lots are divided as they area Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 85041 submitted by City of Brooklyn Center HRA requesting preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide for conveyance purposes the Earle Brown Farm site and Ryan Construction Company's vacant parcel at the northeast corner of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to 12 -30 -85 -7- close the public hearing on Application No. 85041 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center HRA. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 85041 subject to the following conditions. 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15• 3. Approval of the proposed R.L.S. is for reconveyance purposes only. No permits for new construction may be issued without a replatting of landlocked parcels with other parcels or an amendment of the development contract between the City and Ryan Construction Company. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM POLICY ON CHARITABLE GAMBLING The City Manager reviewed policy considerations on the off -site charitable gambling license law. He noted that on December 23, 1985 the City received an application for a charitable gambling license from the Lions Club and pointed out that this application is not before the City Council for specific consideration this evening. He proceeded to review the policy options available to the City Council as stated in M&C No. 85 -15. The City Manager made the recommendation that the City Council reject all requests for charitable gambling licenses for the next 18 months in an effort to allow the City Council to review the experiences of other communities with the current law as stated. He explained the rationale for this recommendation. Councilmember Hawes asked who would control the procedure of gambling - -the charitable organization or the establishment in which the gambling takes place. The City Manager noted the arrangement is made between the charitable gambling license holder and the business establishment, and any agreement must meet State regulations. Councilmember Hawes asked what length of time the charitable gambling license is granted for, and the City Manager noted the license period is for one year. Applicants must apply at the State of Minnesota for such a license, and the City Council has 30 days in which to deny the application. If the Council does not act within the 30-day period, the license is automatically approved. Councilmember Hawes asked whether or not the City is required to approve renewal of a license in the second year of application, and the City Manager responded saying that it is the City Council's responsibility to approve or deny such an application. Mayor Nyquist asked if renewal of a charitable gambling license is handled at the State level, and the City Manager said he assumed the same process used for first time applicants is followed in years thereafter. Councilmember Lhotka'asked what would happen if two charitable organizations wished to have gambling operations at the same business establishment, and the City Manager stated that only one charitable organization per location is allowed. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to whether the City Council would be allowed to limit the granting of gambling licenses to those charitable organizations located within the City of Brooklyn Center, or if it would be necessary to allow any charitable organization to obtain a 12 -30 -85 -8- w charitable gambling license. The City Manager said, in his opinion, the City can determine its own criteria for approval of the gambling licenses. Councilmember Lhotka pointed out that if the Lions Club operates its gambling operation in an establishment, then the Lions Club has a monopoly on that establishment. The City Manager agreed with this statement. Councilmember Theis asked if it would be possible to restrict the hours of operation and the number of people that can be inside of an establishment at one time, as well as make other restrictions regarding this issue. The City Manager said it is his belief that some reasonable restrictions can be set by the City Council if the restrictions do not conflict with State regulations. Councilmember Theis asked if it would be possible to limit the length of the license. The City Manager said he believes that since the State issues a 12 month license, it would not be possible to limit the length of the license to a time period less than that. Councilmember Scott asked what control the management of an establishment has if it encounters problems with a charitable organization operating gambling in the establishment. The City Manager noted that management should reach some sort of agreement with the charitable organization prior to the outset of the gambling operation, but added that such an agreement is strictly between the two parties. Councilmember Scott asked how the Lynbrook Bowl would handle such an agreement. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Steve Nelson of Lynbrook Bowl, who stated that a 30 day cancellation period without the necessity of stating a reason for cancellation would be included in the agreement. He added that the gambling operation would be restricted to a certain area of the establishment. Councilmember Lhotka asked if it is necessary that members of the charitable organization work at the gambling operation, and a member of the Lions Club stated that nonmembers authorized by the charitable organization may be employed in the gambling operation. He added that any money raised by the gambling would return to the community, and asked the City Council to give the Lions Club a chance to let the gambling operation work in the City. Councilmember Hawes asked if the hours of sale for gambling are limited, and Mr. Nelson stated that hours have not yet been set but would certainly be no later than 1:00 a.m. He added that the Lions Club has discussed setting hours from 5:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. each evening, and he is just as concerned as the City Council is with any possible problems that may develop related to the gambling operation. Councilmember Lhotka asked if it is possible to limit the length of the license, and the City Manager stated he would check into this. Councilmember Lhotka recommended that if the City is interested in allowing charitable gambling in the City but is concerned about the consequences, the Lions Club should be given a six month trial period in the City. The City Manager noted that he does not think it will be possible to limit the length of the license because it is issued by the State. Councilmember Theis asked if the City can become part of the lease agreement between the charitable organization and the business establishment. The City Manager noted it is a possibility that this could become part of the City's policy. Councilmember Theis suggested that as part of the City's policy on charitable gambling, a section requiring approval of the lease agreement by the City be included. The City Manager said he would investigate this option. Councilmember Theis expressed concern over some day having pull tabs available in every business establishment in the City. 12 -30 -85 -9- Councilmember Scott asked if any minimum age limit is set for those who can purchase pull tabs, and the City Manager stated that an individual must be 18 years old to purchase the pull tabs and 19 years old to sell them. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dick Risley of the Lions Club who noted the Lions Club's past involvement in the community. He reviewed the Lions Club proposal for operating a charitable gambling operation and said the main goal of the Lions Club is to earn money for the community. Councilmember Hawes asked if a charitable organization is allowed to apply for a license every month until one is approved, and the City Manager stated the City has 30 days to deny a license application. He noted that the Lions Club application was received on December 23, 1985, and the City has until January 23, 1986 to object to the issuance of a license to the Lions Club. Councilmember Hawes asked if the City could put a six-month hold on the application, and the City Manager said that the Lions Club has the option of reapplying for a license at any time. Councilmember Hawes stated that he does not object to the issuance of a charitable gambling license to the Lions Club, but questions some organizations' ability to handle a gambling operation properly. Councilmember Theis asked if the City could incur problems if a gambling license is not renewed, as is the case with liquor licenses. The City Manager said he would investigate this question. Councilmember Lhotka noted that if problems related to a charitable gambling operation are encountered by a business establishment, the business should be able to take action at any time in resolving problems. A representative of the Earle Brown Bowl noted that his business plans of entering into an agreement with the Lions Club are similar to that of Lynbrook Bowl. He added that he does not wish to jeopardize his business by doing this. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Bob Spies of the Lions Club who stated that the charitable gambling operation is a good idea because it will return money to the community. He reviewed some of the financial problems that charitable organizations are encountering at this time, and added that the Lions Club does not wish to have its name tarnished in any way. Councilmember Theis asked if nonmembers selling pull tabs for the Lions Club would be volunteers or paid personnel. A representative of the Lions Club said that the State allows both volunteers and paid personnel, and some persons working for the Lions Club would be paid. Councilmember Theis pointed out that using paid personnel creates a business atmosphere to fund a charitable organization, which is a step away from the way the Lions Club is now operated. The representative from the Lions Club responded that it is necessary to pay personnel because the project is so large, although some Lions Club members will volunteer their time. Councilmember Theis expressed sentiments that he is more supportive of the use of volunteers as opposed to paid personnel. Mr. Nelson pointed out that Lions Club members would not be paid and the State allows them to hire people. Mr. Risley mentioned the personnel who would be involved in working the gambling operation, and pointed out that the Lions Club would be required to file monthly reports to the gambling commission. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he wants to give the Lions Club an opportunity to test this charitable gambling operation. Councilmember Theis requested a highlighted copy of the rules and regulations of the State law regarding charitable gambling operations, adding that he is not ready to approve any policy this evening because of some concerns he still has. Councilmember Scott stated that she also would like to see the Lions Club conduct their gambling operation in the City. She 12 -30 -85 -10- requested that staff prepare some restrictions that would allow only certain local organizations operating in the City for a specified number of years to be permitted to obtain the charitable gambling license. The City Manager pointed out that if the use of a charitable gambling license becomes a profitable venture, the City may receive a number of applications. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table discussion on the charitable gambling policy to the January 13, 1986 City Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:26 p.m. and ,reconvened at 9 :40 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) The City Manager introduced a Resolution Accepting Quotations for a Copy Machine. Councilmember Lhotka noted the 1985 budget indicates money was allocated for a copy machine; however, nothing is listed in the 1986 budget. He asked why this item was not included in the 1986 budget. The City Manager stated that the intention of the 1985 budget allocation was to purchase a large copier and if enough money was available, a smaller copier would be purchased also. Councilmember Lhotka requested that this be made clear in the budget. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -246 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) COPY MACHINE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Theis asked what type of specifications the new copy machine will have. The City Manager said it will be smaller than the copy machine the City presently owns and will not be quite as speedy, but will permit a range of reductions. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing resolution, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Transferring an Unexpended Appropriation for Government Buildings Capital Outlay from the 1985 Budget to the 1986 Budget. Councilmember Lhotka expressed concern about this item appearing in the budget. The City Manager said all items included in this resolution appear in the 1985 budget, but the money is being transferred over to the 1986 budget. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -247 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER AN UNEXPENDED APPROPRIATION FOR GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS CAPITAL OUTLAY FROM THE 1985 BUDGET TO THE 1986 BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Transferring Unexpended Appropriation for the Command Center Van and Warning Siren from the 1985 Budget to the 1986 Budget. 12 -30 -85 -11- Councilmember Hawes asked why only a certain amount of money for the van is being transferred to the 1986 budget, and the City Manager said funds have been expended for the body of the van but not the interior. Councilmember Hawes noted that he saw a civil defense siren sitting on the ground at 53rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, and the City Manager said he would look into the situation. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -248 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER AN UNEXPENDED APPROPRIATION FOR A COMMAND CENTER VAN AND WARNING SIREN FROM THE 1985 BUDGET TO THE 1986 BUDGET The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Construction of Centerbrook Golf Course (Project No. 1985 -23, Contract 1986 -C). The Director of Public Works presented the final version for construction of the golf course and reviewed the plans with the City Council. He discussed problems associated with the soil at the golf course site and stated that construction is expected to start in the spring of 1986, to be completed in the fall of 1987 and to be ready for play in the spring of 1988. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the increase in cost affects the layout of the golf course, and the Director of Public Works said the City has tried to maintain the quality of the course, making a few adjustments to cut some costs. Councilmember Scott asked what happens when additional soil is added, and the Director of Public Works explained the process of layering the dirt. The Council and staff discussed the characteristics of the golf course. Councilmember Theis asked how much money has already been expended on this project, and the Director of Public Works reviewed the expenses noting that approximately $100,000 has already been spent. Councilmember Theis asked if anyone has reviewed the financial ramifications of the increased costs, and the City Manager explained the options available to the City Council. Counci lmember h ' T cis asked how much more money p will be spent before the bids are known, and the Director of Public Works stated that the only cost will be for advertising and analyzing bids. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -249 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND.SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE (PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, CONTRACT 1986 -C) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Supplemental Agreement to Contract with C. S. McCrossan, Inc. to Provide Fill Materials for Golf Course Development. The Director of Public Works reviewed and explained the resolution. Councilmember Scott asked what an erosion control fence is, and the Director of Public Works provided an explanation. Councilmember Lhotka noted that at the time of the original request for fill materials, it was thought that additional fill 12 -30 -85 -12- r would not be needed. The Director of Public Works pointed out that at that time, a complete soil analysis was not yet completed; since that time it has been determined that additional fill is needed. Councilmember Theis asked where the fill material would come from if not from the Target site, and the Director of Public Works said he did not know. Councilmember Theis asked what the reduced cost to the haulers is since they do not have to haul the fill material to another site, and the Director of Public Works noted that they are saving hauling costs. Councilmember Theis expressed concern that the haulers are substantially reducing their costs by transporting the fill material to the golf course site, and the Director of Public Works pointed out that from the City's vantage point, the City is getting a good deal. Councilmember Theis asked when bids will be in for construction of the golf course, and the Director of Public Works stated the deadline is January 30, 1986. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -250 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO CONTRACT WITH C. S. MCCROSSAN, INC. TO PROVIDE FILL MATERIALS FOR GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications for Installation of a Water Utility Control System (Project No. 1985 -19, Contract 1986- D) . He reviewed the status of the current water utility control system and pointed out that there is not one central control point. He added that in the past this was not necessary, but it now is. 'The Director of .Public Works reviewed the proposed system and estimated costs. He added that such a system is necessary because the - City is getting close to using full capacity. Councilmember Lhotka asked what the payback period is for the system, and the Director of Public Works said this has not yet been analyzed. Councilmember Lhotka requested payback projections prior to approval of this project. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -251 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATER UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM (PROJECT NO. 1985 -19, CONTRACT 1986 -D) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Reconstruction Projects During 1986. Councilmember Theis asked what last year's rate was, and the City Manager reviewed them. Councilmember Lhotka expressed concern that the rates were not increased by a large enough increment. Councilmember Scott introduced a Resolution Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Reconstruction Projects During 1986, and Councilmember Hawes seconded the motion. 12 -30 -85 -13- Councilmember Lhotka asked whether or not the Council should be content with the rates set in the resolution, and the City Manager noted that the amount is in the range of what other communities have done. Councilmember Lhotka requested that a survey of other communities' rates be conducted. The City Manager said such a survey would be ready by the first Council meeting in February. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to table the Resolution Establishing Assessment Rates for Street Reconstruction Projects During 1986 to the February 10, 1986 City Council meeting. Councilmember Scott did not object to this motion. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Amendment of the 1986 Employee Position and Classification Plan. Councilmember Hawes asked who presently retains the title of Superintendent of Streets and Parks. The City Manager stated that the employee is Mr. Richard Ploumen, who has been previously employed by both of the cities of Mendota Heights and Bloomington. He added that Mr. Ploumen has had experience with public utilities. The Council discussed the salary range and pay level for the new position created by the reclassification. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -252 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 1986 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of $10,000 from the Contingency Fund to Police Department Capital Outlay. He noted that the original resolution will be changed by replacing the word "leased" to "used ". Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the past policy of putting other City vehicles in use, and the City Manager reviewed the policy. Councilmember Hawes questioned the settlement reached for the vehicle that became inoperative and is requiring replacement. The City Manager explained that the damaged car had over 100,000 miles on it and the cost to repair it would be greater than the vehicle's worth. Councilmember Scott asked if the lights and siren from the damaged vehicle can be reused, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. Councilmember Theis requested a price comparison of a comparably equipped new vehicle when the used car is purchased. RESOLUTION NO. 85 -253 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF $10,000 FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animal Control. He added that this item was first read on December 9, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on December 19, 1985, and is • offered this evening for a second reading. 12 -30 -85 -14- �. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animal Control. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animal Control. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 85 - Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE ANIMAL ORDINANCE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Vacating Easement in Thomas Construction 2nd Addition. He added this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening, and involves an area around Evergreen Park apartments. The Director of Public Works reviewed the area involved in this ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating. Easement in Thomas Construction 2nd Addition and set the public hearing date on the ordinance for January 27, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs, adding this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. He noted that this ordinance amendment results from a request by a resident, and the memorandum from the Director of Planning & Inspection explains the changes to the ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the language of the amendment and recommended adoption by the City Council. He added that the original complainant supports the amendment. Councilmember Lhotka asked if the change was instigated by one person or a number of persons. The City Manager stated that approximately six people attending a past • City Council meeting made the request. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that staff was requested to review the ordinance. Councilmember Lhotka said he is not in favor of changing an ordinance because of only one complaint. He feels the ordinance has worked well with very few complaints. Councilmember Hawes noted that he has received numerous complaints from residents over the years regarding the enforcement of the present ordinance. Councilmember Theis expressed concern over the large area allowed for putting up banners and balloons, and suggested some specific limitations. He noted that the number of off -site signs has not been addressed, and the Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the number of these signs has never been limited and reviewed the current sign allowances. Councilmember Theis suggested that'the area for the off - site sign is too large and a smaller size would be preferable 12 -30 -85 -15- Councilmember Scott said the issue is being blown out of proportion and stated that for garage sales signs are posted for a limited time. Councilmember Lhotka said he is not out to ban garage sales, but he objects to any changes being made to an ordinance that,has worked successfully in the past. Councilmember Hawes stated that he agrees with Councilmember Lhotka to a point, and that he is much more irritated by the real estate signs rather than garage sale signs in the City. He felt the City should clamp down on violators of the real estate sign ordinance. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for a first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Rummage Sale Signs and setting the public hearing for January 27, 1986 at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed, with Councilmembers Lhotka and Theis opposed. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 Regarding Wall Signs for Enclosed Shopping Malls, noting this ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. Councilmember Hawes asked if it is possible to post a sign on four or five different exterior walls, and the Director of Planning & Inspection responded affirmatively. He noted that the ordinance amendment limits signery to 10% of the wall area. Mayor Nyquist pointed out that the amendment will allow those without external walls to post signs, and noted that 10% of the wall space is a large area. Councilmember Lhotka again expressed concern that an ordinance is being amended because of one party requesting a change. The City Manager pointed out that this is not the first time that such a request has been received. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 Regarding Wall Signs for Enclosed Shopping Malls and to set a public hearing for January 27, 1986 at 8:00 P.m. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF LOCAL 49 PUBLIC WORKS MASTER LABOR AGREEMENT The City Manager requested authorization from the City Council to allow the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Local 49 Public Works Master Labor Agreement. He noted this collective bargaining agreement covers the period January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1986. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to Execute Local 49 Public Works Master Labor Agreement. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) RESTRUCTURING OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE The City Manager reviewed the suggested restructuring of the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, noting that the chairman of the committee feels restructuring is merited. Councilmember Lhotka asked why the Administrative Traffic Committee was created along with the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee, and the City Manager explained the purpose and process of the two committees. The City Manager pointed out that the Administrative Traffic Committee has worked very well in effectively handling complaints on most occasions. The Council requested the City Manager to meet with the chairman of the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee to discuss the restructuring and notification of the current committee membership. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: 12 -30 -85 -16- BOWLING ALLEY LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. CIGARETTE LICENSE Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr. Brookdale Ford 2500 County Rd. 10 Brooklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Canteen Company of MN 6300'Penn Ave. S. FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. Dahlco Music & Vending 119 State Street Ground Round Restaruant 2545 County Rd. 10 Denne's Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Holiday Inn Gift Shop 1501 Freeway Blvd., Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Brookdale Corporate Center II 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brookdale Corporate Center 6300 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. NE Dayton's Brookdale Center Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. SuperAmerica Stations 6545 W. River Rd. SuperAmerica Stations 1901 57th Ave. N. Total Petroleum, Inca 6830'Brooklyn Blvd. GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd. Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. Northwestern Bell 6540 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. SuperAmerica 6845 W. River Rd. SuperAmerica 1901 57th Ave. N. Total Petroleum 6830 Brooklyn Blvd. LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE C.O. Carlson Air Conditioning 1156 Aldrich Ave. N. Hovde Heating 2222 Edgewood Ave. S. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. NURSING HOME LICENSE Maranatha Conservative Home 5401 69th Ave. N. OFF -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Chuck's Q. 1505 69th Ave. N. Denne's Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. 12 -30 -85 -17- ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE 50's r GG ill 5524 Brooklyn Blvd. Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N. Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Davanni's 937 Summit Dr. Denny's 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. Little Brooklyn Restaurant 6219 Brooklyn Blvd. Rocky Rococo Brookdale Center Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. POOL AND BILLIARD TABLE LICENSE Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Bob Van Moorlehem 6261 Brooklyn Dr. Herbert A. Zwirn 5500 Bryant Ave. N. Brian A. Patnode 5916 Bryant Ave. N. Merle G. Biggs 3910 65th Ave. N. Joseph & Madeline Roche 824 69th Ave. N. Myrna L. Hubert 5300 70th Circle Renewal: George & Susan Patten 5912 Admiral Lane G. Lucht, R. Wood, W. Clauson 5105 Brooklyn Blvd. Rudolph J. Olson 6505 Brooklyn Blvd. Laura & Jeff Hanson 6933 Brooklyn Blvd. Peter & Lillian Ulmaniec .5906 Colfax Ave. N. Raymod & Tracy Rice 5801 Ewing Ave. N. John Carnahan 1525 Humboldt Place John Carnahan 1531 Humboldt Place M & J Properties 1549 Humboldt Place M & J Proprties 1555 Humboldt Place Darlene Dimitroff 6442 Indiana Ave. N. Carin Lee Rudolph 5318, 20 Queen Ave. N. Robert Messersmith 5338, 40 Queen Ave. N. Byron & Nancy Mach 4708 4712 Twin Lake Ave. Gary & Danae Morrison 5104 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Rosita Acosta 6113 Xerxes Ave. N. Sherry A. Ronallo 819, 821 55th Ave. N. David Larson 1313 57th Ave. N. James Lupient 4450 58th Ave. N. Jerry Harrington & Eugene Berg 1200 67th Ave. N. SIGNHANGER'S LICENSE Scenic Sign Corporation P.O. Box 881 The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 85 -254 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 12 -30 -85 -18- r RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE IN BID OPENING DATE FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT JOHN MARTIN DRIVE. AND AT SUMMIT DRIVE (PROJECT NO. 1985 -20, CONTRACT 1985 -M) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and the motion passed unanimously. LIFT STATION CLAIMS The City Manager produced a listing of the claims submitted by residents affected by the lift station problem. Councilmember Theis asked for a comparison of the newly submitted figures to the original estimates, and the Director of Finance presented these figures. He added that two claims are yet outstanding. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the 12 settlements for lift station claims as submitted by the City Manager. The motion passed, with Councilmembers Lhotka and Hawes opposed. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:37 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 12 -30 -85 -19- MEMORANDUM J, TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner RE: Performance guarantees DATE: January 23, 1986 The following performance guarantee is recommended for release 1. Earle Brown Farm Estates, 5th Addition Xerxes Place North Planning Commission Application No. 83024 Amount of Guarantee: $35,000.00 Bond Obligor: DeVries Builders This guarantee has been held to insure completion of all remaining improvements in the Earle Brown farm Estates development. A few remaining trees have been planted this past fall and common parking areas have been striped. The homeowner's association has voted not to have the originally planned playlot installed. All improvements appear to be completed according to the approved plan Concern has been raised that existing landscaping does not provide adequate screening of the development from the single family homes at Thurber Road and Xerxes Place. The developer has agreed to provide 10 additional honeysuckle shrubs along the tops of the berms in this area. Recommend total release of bond subject to submittal of a $300.00 cash deposit to insure completion of agreed upon shrubbery. Approved4y Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -20, CONTRACT 1985 -M (INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS ON SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT JOHN MARTIN DRIVE AND AT SUMMIT DRIVE) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1985 -20, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 23rd day of January, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder System "A" System "B" Total Bid Collins Electric $83,778.00 $63,288.00 $147,066.00 CSI Electric $82,000.00 $65,500.00 $147,500.00 Hoffman Electric $73,400.00 $58,900.00 $132,300.00 Killmer Electric $85,465.00 $60,344.00 $145,859.00 Egan McKay $80,437.00 $63,477.00 $143,914.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Hoffman Electric of St. Paul, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW,- THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed y y g y to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $132,300.00 with Hoffman Electric of St. Paul, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1985 -20 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No. 1985 -20 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $159,500 $132,300 Engineering Consultant 8,000 8,000 City 3,200 3,200 Administration 1,600 1,600 Total $172,300 $145,100 Resolution No. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I F h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 1986 -02, CONTRACT 1986 -B (POLICE DEPARTMENT REMODELING - PHASE II) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1986 -02, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer, on the 22nd day of January, 1986. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount GEM CONSTRUCTION $ 38,584 ZNC CONSTRUCTION 41,178 HOLST CONSTRUCTION 43,640 DNR CONSTRUCTION 45, MORCON 46,469 PROCO WOOD PRODUCTS 47,880 ROCON 47,906 HMH ENTERPRISES 48,288 DAHN BUILDERS 49,500 COMMERCIAL HOUSING RENOVATORS 49,889 TCM 55,924 WHEREAS, it appears that Gem Construction of Rosemount, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the.amount of $38,584.00 with Gem Construction of Rosemount, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1986 -02 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated cost of Improvement Project No, 1986 -02 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: As Approved As Bid Contract $ 45,000 $ 38,584 Consultant 5,000 5,000 $ 50,000 $ 43,584 RESOLUTION NO. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. g� Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REVISED BID OPENING DATE FOR PROJECT NO. 1985 -23, CONTRACT 1986 -C (CENTERBROOK'GOLF COURSE) WHEREAS, Resolution No. 85 -249 adopted by the City Council on the 30th day of December, 1985, established January 30, 1986 as the date on which bids were to be opened for Project No. 1985 -23, Contract 1986 -C (Centerbrook Golf Course); and WHEREAS, Brauer and Associates, Ltd., the project architects have recommended that the bid opening date be extended to February 4, 1986 because of competition with other large projects which are being bid at approximately the same time, and because the relative complexity of this project demands more time and effort by the bidders: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the bid opening date for Project No. 1985 -23, Contract 1986 -C is hereby revised and re- established at 11:00 a.m., February 4, 1986. • 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. Janauary 20, 1986 Mr. Sy Knapp Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Centerbrook Golf Course, Brooklyn Center, MN B &A Project #85 -31 Sy As I mentioned to you the other day, I would recommend that the City move the bid opening for this project from 11:00 a.m., January 30, 1986, to 11:00 a.m., February 4, 1986. The two reas.ons for this recommendation are: 1. Two other bid openings, a large private development on January 23rd and a large Mn /DOT highway job on January 24th, are competing for the contractor's attention. 2. The relative complexity of this job demands more time and effort on the part of the contractor which, if given, will allow for more competitive bidding. If you have any questions or would like me to attend the Council Meeting, please give me a call BRAUER` SSOCIATES LTD. e a W. Watson Vice President GWW /1k 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 Yd Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT RATES FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DURING 1986 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that, pursuant to Resolution No. 85 -34, adopted on February 11, 1985, the following assessment rates are hereby established for street reconstruction projects (consisting of the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related street paving improvements) in residentially -zoned areas, where such projects are placed under contract for construction in 1986: 1. for residential properties, zoned or used as single- family sites, which are not subdividable under the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the unit rate of assessment shall be $1,300.00. 2. for properties in R -2 zoned districts, which are no used as single- family sites, the equivalent rate shall be $17.33 per front foot, with a minimum assessment of $1,300.00. 3. for properties in R -3 zoned districts the assessment rate per residential unit shall be established by the following formula: Assessable frontage x $17.33 Number of residential units 4. the assessment rates in R -4, R -5, R -6, and R -7 zoned districts shall be individually established based on an evaluation of project costs and project benefits. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF I :BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C E NT ER EMERGENCY POLICE - FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: January 22, 1986 RE: Special Assessment Rates for Street Reconstruction in Residential Areas As requested by the City Council, our department has conducted a survey of other cities' policies regarding assessment rates for street reconstruction in residential areas. A copy of Joe Oster's memo to me is attached. It is apparent that there still is little uniformity between cities in this matter. Some cities maintain the policy of "assessing total project costs ", but admit to the fact that this results in maintaining the status quo because property owners refuse to pay assessment rates of $2,500 to $3,500 per household. Other cities finance the entire costs from General (ad valorem) taxes. And there are a few cities who attempt to levy assessments based on benefit (ie; increased market value). While there is still a spread of opinion as to the dollar value of this benefit, I believe that the figure of $1,300 per single family home is appropriate for 1986 construction in Brooklyn Center. Attached also are copies of the reports submitted to the Council in 1985 on this subject. I recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution, establishing the figure at $1,300.00, or at some alternate level, at the January 27, 1986 meeting. While we have had no requests for street reconstruction so far this year, I would expect to receive some inquiries soon. It is important to be able to advise the people involved what their costs would be if a project is constructed. Respectfully submitted, d � Sy rnapp SK: jn Dater January 22, 1986 To: Sy Knapp Director of Public Works From: Joe Oster Public Works Coordinator RE: Phone Survey regarding assessing street reconstruction On January 21 and 22, 1986, I conducted a phone survey to determine how other metro area communities assess street reconstruction to R -1 residential properties. Below I provide a summary of the policy or practice of each city contacted and extend the policy or practice, when possible, to show what the assessment would be to a standard 75 front foot residential property in Brooklyn Center. In cases where actual construction cost is assessed, I used the same figure as last year's summary. Summary Assessment Golden Valley (Lowell Odland - Director of Public Works) $` 0.00` The City of Golden Valley does not assess for street reconstruction if the property has been previously assessed. Bloomington (Don Elvrum) $ 610.00 The City of Bloomington has not done street reconstruction, however the city considers the presence of paved surface as evidence of previous assessment and no additional assessment would be levied for pavement. Curb, Gutter, sidewalk and storm sewer would be assessed when installed. New Brighton (Less Proper - City Engineer) $ 1,550.00 The city assesses the full cost of street construction to properties not previously assessed. For reconstruction, properties are assessed 25% of the actual construction costs with the city paying 75 %. If curb and gutter has not previously been installed, the city assesses the full cost of construction and if bituminous curb was installed -a 50% credit is recognized. Brooklyn Park (Chuck Lenthe - City Engineer) $ 2,700.00 The City of Brooklyn Park has not done street reconstruction however it is thought that street reconstruction would be handled the same as street construction and the actual cost would be assessed to abutting properties. - St. Louis Park (Jim Grube - Director of Public Works) $- 1,200.00 The City of St. Louis Park assesses properties abutting street reconstruction sites at a rate of $16.00 per front foot. This rate is estimated to be 60% of the estimated actual cost of construction of $25.00 per front foot. White Bear Lake (Steve Gatlin - City Engineer) information not While no formal policy exists, the City of White Bear Lake sufficient determines assessed cost on a case -by- case basis. Since White Bear Lake is an older community, many of the streets do not conform to the standard 32 foot width with curb and gutter construction. Properties are assessed for the difference between the adopted standard and street construction currently in place (i.e. 24 foot with no curb and gutter). At the present time the city is considering a formal policy of assessing the additional benefit to properties measured as increased property value. Minnetonka (Don Asmus - City Engineer) $ 0.00 The City of Minnetonka does not have a formal street reconstruction policy but it is thought that properties would not be assessed for street reconstruction. The history is that the original streets where installed to a 5 ton design because it was known that utilities would be extended in the future and the new street would be constructed to a 7 ton design. Properties were assessed the actual cost of construction for both the original streets and for the 7 ton streets constructed in conjunction with the extention of utilities. Plymouth (Sherman Goldberg - City Engineer) information The City of Plymouth does not have a formal street not reconstruction policy because they have not done street sufficient reconstruction. It is not known how they would handle assessemnts for reconstruction. Shakopee (Bo Spurrier) $ 1,200.00 Properties are assessed for street reconstruction based upon the benefit received in terms of increased property value. While the benefit to a standard residential property is estimated to be $1,200 other amounts may be assessed as determined by a certified assessor. Eden Prairie (Rod Rue Design Engineer) $ 610.00 The City of Eden; Prairie does not have a formal policy for street reconstruction of City Streets. The current, practice is that when a rural street is upgraded to a City Street that abutting properties are assessed for curb, gutter, storm sewer, and utilities if they were not in place prior to construction, but are not assessed for the cost of pavement. Minneapolis (Jody- Polzine) The City of Minneapolis assesses 25% of the cost of street $ 1,875.00 reconstruction to abutting properties. This amount to $20.00 per front foot in 1985 and is estimated to be $25.00 in 1986. While this amount is high when applied to the standard Brooklyn Center property, it should be noted that the standard Minneapolis property is 40 to 50 frontage feet. �i CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 CENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: January 23, 1985 Revised 2/8/85 RE: Special Assessment Policy Street Reconstruction in Residential Areas Introduction: To -date the City of Brooklyn Center has maintained a policy that all costs relating to street improvement projects will be specially assessed to the benefiting properties. Exceptions which have been made to this policy are few, but include the following: 1. on Municipal State Aid street projects, assessments to benefiting residential projects (in 1985) are limited to: - for concrete curb and gutter actual cost, or $12.29 per assessable foot, whichever is less for grading and paving - (where no previous assessment has been levied) - actual cost or $21.93 per assessable foot, whichever is less - for grading and paving - (where a previous assessment has been Levied) - assessment is based on a 15 year "equity schedule" with a maximum rate of $11. per assessable foot. Note: Municipal State Aid Street funds are used to pay the balance of costs on these projects. 2. In Industrial areas, where 9 -ton roadways are constructed, 70% of the costs are specially assessed, while the City pays 30% of the costs (usually through the use of Municipal State Aid street funds). 1 „ . m.. 3. On the Xerxes Avenue reconstruction project between T.H. 100 and C.S.A.H. 10, special assessments levied covered 67% of the total costs, while the City's M.S.A. funds covered the balance. 4. On the Halifax Avenue /70th Avenue North improvement project i in 1984, the total costs for concrete curb and gutter and street resurface were assessed while hale the City ,paid for storm sewer system improvements and special intersection improvements, Maintenance Program The City has established and is maintaining a high -level street maintenance program. Under this program street patching and repairs are accomplished whenever signs of deterioration become evident (chuckholes, cracking, settlement, rough edges, poor rideability, etc.) and all streets in the City are seal - coated approximately once every 5 to 6 years. Total costs for this high level of maintenance, including overhead and administration costs is estimated at $300,000 per year. (This does not include signing, street sweeping, storm sewer maintenance, snow plowing, or any other costs not directly related to pavement maintenance.) Recommendation To Establish New Policies For Street Reconstruction Although most streets within the City of Brooklyn Center are being well maintained, there are needs for street improvements. These needs reflect the following considerations: - Some streets need geometric improvements to increase their traffic - carrying capacity, and /or to improve their structural capacity. Note: Nearly of t P Y these ( Y are on the Munci al State Aid Street System.) p y ) Some streets have poorly - defined edges, especially at. intersect' ions vehicles drive across corners) rs) and in areas of high parking demand (despite the Code Enforcement Officers' enforcement of the City's prohibition to park on the boulevard). - Several preliminary requests are received each year from residents interested in having concrete curb and gutter installed - to improve the aesthetics and maintainability of their yards. However, when the estimate of costs are determined and they are advised that existing policy requires all costs to be specially assessed (currently at a rate of approximately $28.00 per assessable foot), none are able to receive enough neighborhood support for the Proposal to even justify circulation of a petition. . 1 0 2 Determination of Benefits To Be Specially Assessed "Special assessments are intended to reflect the influence of a specific local improvement upon the value of the property. No matter what particular formula or method is used to establish the amount of the assessment, the real measure of benefits is the increase in the market value of the land as a result of the improvement. " {1) "In the past, City Councils have been given broad discretion in determining benefits.. However (recent court decisions) . require that the City Council should gather as much evidence as possible on the issue of whether or not the benefits to be derived from installation of a particular improvement are sufficient to justify the cost and make specific findings as to the increases in market value. "(2) ".(One way) ... to reduce the number of special assessment appeals is for the City to pay for some substantial portion of the cost of improvements out of general funds. The larger the portion of cost assumed by the City, the smaller would be the chances that... (the assessment would be found to exceed the benef it) ... "(3) (1) League of Minnesota Cities - "Local Improvement Guide" (2) Ibid (3) Ibid Accordingly, we have reviewed the i question of benefit.uszng two approaches, i.e. - (1) What rates are other cities using? and (2) What amount of benefit will be supported by qualified real estate appraisers? Survey of Other Cities A telephone survey of 10 metropolitan -area cities similar in size to Brooklyn Center indicates a great variance in assessment Policy for street reconstruction. The hypothetical project (in a residential area) we described was as follows: "Before" condition: a bituminous- surfaced street without concrete curb and gutter, in fair to good condition "After" condition: a street with new concrete curbs and gutters,with pavement repairs as needed and with a bituminous overlay. 3 Following is a summary of the special assessments which would be levied by the 10 cities surveyed. Special Assessments Levied Number of Cites None 2 between $500 and $1000 3 between $1000 and $1600 3 over $1600 2 Real Estate Appraisers Discussions with our City Assessor and with a qualified independent real estate appraiser have indicated that it is very` difficult to develop specific findings P P s which clearly demonstrate g y - the amount of increase in market t v alue to properties: which occur as a result of this kind of street improvements. However, the following guidelines have emerged from our discussions: the benefits of concrete curb and gutter installation are easier to define than those relating to pavement improvements. the benefits for any street improvement are approximately equal for any residential building site regardless of size or frontage, and regardless of whether the property is a "corner lot" (with improvements on both sides) or an interior lot. - benefits are related to "before" and "after" conditions of the street, not to the question of whether (or when) the property was specially assessed for previous improvements. Recommended Assessment Policy For Street Reconstruction In Residential Areas It is abundantly clear that the policy of "Total Benefits = Total Costs" cannot be arbitrarily applied to street reconstruction projects. If the City is to proceed with street reconstruction projects, a new policy more closely relating to :market .value . increases must be adopted to reflect guidelines established b recent court rulings. y Based on our studies, I recommend that the City's special assessment policy be amended to provide that special assessments for street reconstruction projects (which include the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related grading, storm drainage and street paving improvements) will be determined as follows: for R -1 properties which are not subdividable: $1,200 per buildable site plus costs for driveway improvements, special parking provisions, etc. 4 for R -2 properties: $16.00 per assessable foot, with a minimum of $1,200 "(75 x $16.00 $1.200.00). for R -3 properties: Total benefit $16.00 per assessable foot Assessment per residential unit Total benefit No. of Units for R -4 to R -7 properties: Benefits to be determined based on individual project evaluation Cost Analysis of Proposed Policy In order to evaluate the financial impact of the proposed policy, we have developed the following analysis: Total Cost For Improvements If all streets in the City were to be improved to optimum standards (i.e. - all Municipal State Aid streets to 9 -ton design with concrete curb and gutter; and all local streets to 5 -ton design with concrete curb and gutter) the estimated total costs, based on 1985 construction prices would be: Miles of Cost per Estimated Street Description Streets Mile Total Costs Municipal State Aid streets 20 $500,000 $10,000,000 Residentail streets in good condition (needing curb and gutter and overlay only) 75 $225,000 $16,875,000 Residentail streets in poor to fair condition (needing soil corrections, drainage improvements, curb and gutter and overlay) 8 $350,000 $ 2,800,000 TOTAL $30 million Note: It must be emphasized that we are not recommending consideration of reconstructing all streets in the City - either immediately or over any specified time period. Rather, these cost estimates are provided simply for the purpose of providing a total perspective of the question. 5 Funding Sources: Application of the above- recommended special assessment formula for residential areas would result in special - assessments totaling approximately $8.4 million (staff estimates that approximately 7000 of the City's 8200 residential units would abut a street improvement and would be assessed at $1200 /unit). It is estimated that special assessments to commercial and industrial properties within the City would total $2.6 million. An additional $10 million would be eligible for Municipal State Aid street fund reimbursement. This would leave approximately $9 million to be paid from the ad- valorem property tax levy or other funding sources. Rationale for City Participation: Participation in street improvement costs can be justified on the following basis: Description of Estimated Item City Benefit Benefit Reduced Pavement Over a 20 year period, $300,000 /year Maintenance Costs it is estimated that x .67 pavement maintenance costs _x 20-years on a reconstructed street $ 4 million would be reduced by 2 /3rds when compared to the costs involved in extended maintenance Improved Property Increases in Assessed $10 million Values Property Value (equal value increase to value of special x .02 (2% average assessments) will result tax rate) in increased ad- valorem _x ` 20-years taxes $ 4 million Note. - approx. 15% of this increase represents the City tax levy. The remaining 85% represents tax levies by other agencies (school, county,, etc.) Other Benefits Improved Community Intangible Appearance and, Socio- Economic Effects 6 b - .... _- Summary: As noted above, this office has no intention of recommending the initiation of a City -wide street reconstruction program. Rather, this memo seeks to identify a rationale for adoption of a realistic special assessment policy relating to street reconstruction projects in residential areas. It is my opinion that adoption of the recommended policy would: (a) make special assessments levied on City- initiated projects more acceptable to property owners. (b) make it possible for some property owners who are interested in neighborhood improvement to recieve the support of other affected property owners; and (c) place the City in position to show market value benefits equal to or exceeding the special assessment, as required by recent court rulings. With adoption of the new policy, I would not expect any "rush on City Hall ", by property owners asking for petitions for street improvements. Rather, I would expect to see petitions for a maximum of 6 to 10 blocks (less than 1 mile) per year. And, of course, the City Council always retains the authority to approve or disapprove any individual project based on its merits, its costs, its benefits to the property owners, and a cost /benefit analysis of City participation. Respectfully submitted, SK: , n 7 7 i' CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 CENT TELEPHONE 561 -5440 R TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: February 8, 1985 RE: Supplemental Analysis - Proposed Amendment of Special Assessment Policy for Street Reconstruction This report is submitted in response to the City Council's request for additional information and evaluation of the effects of the proposed new policy for special assessments for street reconstruction projects (see memo dated 1/23/85 - corrected copy attached) On the attached sheets, four past projects and one possible 1985 project are analyzed to show the effects of existing policy vs. the proposed policy. In addition, a separate memo relating to the proposed Lyndale Avenue street improvement between 53rd Avenue and 57th Avenue is being submitted to show the effects of the recommended policy change on a parcel -by- parcel basis. Res ectfully submitted, U Sy Tnapp Director of Public Works SK:jn Project No. 1 - Reconstruction of S3rd Avenue North between I -94 and Penn Avenue North Explanation p This project was initiated by City Council action in 1979 and construction was completed in 1980. Because 53rd Avenue is a Municipal State Aid street, and because special assessments had previously been levied (during the 1950's and early 1960 the special assessment rates which were applied to this project were those established by the "Equity schedule as contained in the current Assessment Policy for Municipal State Aid Street Improvements. Under that policy, the assessments levied were calculated at the following rates: - for concrete curb & gutter =$ 8.00 /front foot - for pavement improvements = $ 7.60 /'front foot TOTAL = $15.60 /front foot Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Assessments If adjusted to reflect 1985 construction costs, those assessment' rates under existing policy would be: - for concrete curb $ gutter = $11.68 /front foot for pavement improvements = $12.29 /front foot TOTAL = $23.97 /front foot Application of those rates to four typical properties along 53rd Avenue would result in the following assessment comparisons: Total Assessment Total Assessment Under Existing Under Proposed Typical Property Policy (1985 rates) Policy (1985) 50 L.F. with Parking 50 x $23.97 = $1198.50 $1200.00 50 L. F. without Parking 50 x $23.97 = $1198.50 $ 900.00 75 L.F. with Parking 7S x $23.97 = $1797.75 $1200.00 75 L. F. without Parking 7S x $23.97 = $1797.75 $ 900.00 Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Project Cost Distribution The following tabulation shows the actual cost distribution for the 1979 project, that same distribution updated to reflect 1985 costs, and the cost distribution which would result from application of the proposed policy: Estimated Actual 1985 Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Distribution Distribution Distribution with Existing with Proposed 1979 Policy Policy (1985) Total Cost $388,000 $845,000 $845,000 Special Assessment 43,000 94,000 57,000 City Share 345 751,000 788,000 k Project No. 2 Relocation and Reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue from 59th to 62nd Avenue North Explanation: This 1977 ro'ect was initiated p � bated by the City .Council in cooperation with MN /DOT, in conjunction with the construction of I -94. MN /DOT agreed to pay for relocation costs, but the City, through a special assessment levy, paid the "betterment" costs. Special assessment rates reflected these costs as follows: for concrete curb & gutter = $ 6.00 /front foot for street improvement = $ 7.25 /front foot Total = $13.25 /front foot Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Assessments If adjusted to reflect 1985 construction costs, these assessment rates would be: - for concrete curb & gutter = $11.68 /front foot for street improvements = $14.11 /front foot Total = $25.79 /front foot Application, of these rates to typical properties along the project would result in the following assessment comparisons: Actual Total Assessment Total Assessment Assessment under Existing under Proposed Typical Property 1977 Policy (1985 rates) Policy (1985) 75 foot lot $ 993.75 $ 1,934.25 $ 1,200.00 80 foot lot $1,060.00 $ $ 1,200.00 ^ e Project No. 3 Reconstruction of Halifax Avenue from 70th to 71st Avenue and 70th Avenue from Halifax Avenue to June Avenue Explanation: This 1984 project was initiated jointly by the Brooklyn Center City Council and by petition of the St. Alphonsus Church. The basic project included widening of the "church side" of these streets and installation of concrete curb and gutter on that side. _Accordingly, the assessment rate levied against church property (approximately $38.50 per front foot) reflected the costs for widening the street as well as the costs for curb and gutter and normal residential street reconstruction. It is noted, however, that a parallel effort was made to determine the interest of those private property owners who lived across the street from the church, in getting street improvements at the same time. Based on existing policy and 1984 construction costs, we estimated those costs at $35.00 per foot. Because only one private property owner expressed approval, this proposal was dropped and the project proceeded only on the "church side" of these streets. Project No. 4 Installation of Water Main on Lee and Major Avenues between 69th and 70th Avenues Explanation: In P 1984 property owners Initiated a petition to install water mains on Lee and Major Avenues between 69th and 70th Avenues. In conjunction with that ,petition, we also prepared a report showing that, if concrete curb and gutter were to e b installed at the same time, substantial cost savings could be realized as compared g to th e ( P costs for such installation under a separate project). Accordingly, a parallel petition was circulated to determine interest in the installation of concrete curb and gutter in conjunction with the water main project - with an estimated 'rate of $20.00 /front foot for the street improvement (resulting in a typical assessment of 75x$20 = $1500 for the street improvement). Because 14 of the 24 property owners signed the petition asking for water main installation, while only 5 owners signed the petition asking for the street improvements, the water main project was installed without the street improvements. I believe this example shows that, while an assessment of $1500 per household is closer to being acceptable to property owners than the $24.00 to $35.00 /front foot rates normally charged under existing policy, it still didn't "sell" on this project. However, a reduction to $1200 /household (as suggested by the proposed policy) might have made the proposal acceptable to more property owners. Project No. 5 Installation of concrete curb and gutter and bituminous overlay of the following streets: Drew Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue Ewing Avenue from 67th to 69th Avenue 67th Avenue from Drew to Ewing Avenue 68th Avenue from Drew to Ewing Avenue Explanation: A property owner in this area has expressed his desire to circulate a petition requesting these" improvements in 1985. Based on our cost estimates, this project would cost $140,000 (0.62 miles at $225,000 /mile). Under existing policy, the total costs would be levied against the abutting frontage, resulting in an assessment rate of $28.00 /front foot. Application of this rate to two typical properties within the project area would result in the following assessment comparisons: Total Assessment Total Assessment Under Existing Under Proposed Typical Property Policy Policy' Mid -b lock lot $2 $1 , 2 0 0 80 feet wide Corner lot $3,360 $1,200 80 feet wide (assessable frontage = 80' + 120/3 = 120 Effect of Proposed Policy Change on Cost Distribution The following tabulation shows the toal cost distribution based on existing policy vs. total cost distribution under the proposed policy: Cost Cost Distribution Distribution Under Under Source Existing Policy Proposed Policy Special Assessments $125,800* $ 72,000 City Share $ 14,200* $ 68,000 Total $140,000 $140,000 *Note: City share under "Existing Policy" reflects City's ownership of frontage on 67th Avenue. Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 85 -34 RESOLUTION ANN \'DING ASSESSMENT POLICY RELATING TO STREET RECONSTRUCTION 1H]REAS, on February 10, 1964, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted the Brooklyn Center Assessment Procedure Manual as a guideline for the special assessment of costs related to public improvements; and WHEREAS, a current report prepared by the Director of Public Works indicates that the benefit received from the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related street paving improvements is most equitably levied on a residential unit basis as opposed to the frontage basis; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the best interests of the City to amend existing special assessment policies to reflect the residential unit basis of assessment related to such street improvement projects NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following special assessment policy be established for street reconstruction projects in residentially -zoned areas, which consist of the installation of concrete curb and gutter and related street paving improvements paced under contract in 1985: 1. for residential properties, zoned or used as single - family sites, which are not subdividable under the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the unit rate of assessment shall be $1,200.00 2. for properties in R -2 zoned districts, which are not used as single- family sites, the equivalent rate shall be $16.00 per front foot, with a minimum assessment of $1,200.00. 3. for properties in R -3 zoned districts the assessment rate per residential unit shall be established by the following formula: Assessable frontage x $16.00 Number of rest ential units 4. the assessment rates in R -4, R -5, R -6, and R -7 zoned districts shall be individually established based on an evaluation of project costs and project benefits. February 11, 1985 Da 411a7 Z 4 Z r1 ' t ATTEST: j erh Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR DEE WELTY ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Subdivision Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Robert D. Welty is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk; The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into the day and year set forth hereinafter, by and between hereinafter called the "Owner ", and the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a municipal corporation in the State of Minnesota, hereinafter called the "City ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Owner of Outlot G, Twin Cities Interchange Park, which is located in Section 35, Township 119, Range 21, in the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, wishes to subdivide the property as part of a new plat entitled "Dee Welty Addition ", hereinafter called the "Subdivision "; and WHEREAS, Section 15 -109 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances requires the Owner to enter into agreement with the City to provide for the construction of improvements required to provide service to the Subdivision, and to rovide for a method hod of payment for such improvements: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: DIVISION 1 - APPLICATION OF THIS AGREEMENT 1.1 That the provisions of this agreement shall apply to all portions of the Subdivision. All references to portions or lots within the Subdivision shall be deemed to apply to all portions or tracts of the Subdivision, unless the context in which such reference is used clearly indicates it applies to only specified portions or tracts. 1.2 The provisions of this agreement shall run with the land and shall bind the Owner, its heirs, executors, and assigns. DIVISION 2 - IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER 2.1 That the Owner hereby petitions the City to construct, or have constructed, at his cost, within one year of the date of this agreement, those improvements itemized in Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. The Owner shall submit plans for the construction of said improvements to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the development of the Subdivision. Said plans shall be prepared by a Registered Engineer. 2.2 That the Owner shall provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $ (equal to one hundred fifty percent of the Owner's estimated obligation listed in Exhibit A) prior to release of the plat for filing at the Registrar of Titles Office. Said financial guarantee shall be provided to insure completion of those items listed in Exhibit A and shall continue in full force and effect until the City Council shall be resolution approve and accept all the work o PP p r payments to be .made herein and release the surety from any further liability. In the event the Owner fails to complete the improvements within one year of the date of execution of this agreement, the City shall undertake the work. All costs by incurred by the City including, but-not limited to contract costs, engineering costs, administrative costs, legal costs and capitalized interest costs, shall be deducted from said financial guarantee, and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the Owner. In the event the City experiences costs for completion of the work in excess of the financial guarantee provided by the owner, the City shall have a lien against the property until such time as the City is reimbursed. DIVISION 3 - IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY 3.1 That the Owner acknowledges there are no improvements to be constructed by the City, except in the case of default of the Owner to complete the work as provided above. DIVISION 4 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED AGAINST THE SUBDIVISION 4.1 That the Owner petitions the City for permission to connect three residential lots to the municipal sanitary sewer and water systems, acknowledges'the benefits received from the utilities and agrees to the levy of special assessments against the Subdivision in the method indicated in Exhibit B. 4.2 That the City will levy special assessments against the Subdivision, pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 as amended. DIVISION 5 ADVANCE PAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 5.1 That advance payment of all special assessments on the Owner's property shall be made at the time the Owner sells said property, unless the City Council approves assumption of the special assessments by the purchaser at the time of sale. 5.2 That upon such sale of said property, the Owner shall pay to the City CASH, in an amount equal to one and one -half times (1 -1/2 x) the estimated total of all assessments for said property if the assessment roll has not been adopted by the City Council. 5.3 That in the event the payment made in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is greater than.the actual assessment levied, the City will return such excess to the Owner within 30 days after the adoption oflthe assessment roll. 5.4 That in the event the payment made in advance of the adoption of the assessment roll is less than the actual assessment levied the Owner shall make payment in the amount of the difference within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment roll. DIVISION 5 - FUTURE UTILITIES CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES 5.1 That Exhibit E, attached hereto, summarizes the utility connections and hookup charges which will be made to the various tracts within the Subdivision as they are developed. That the Owner hereby acknowledges the benefits received from these connections and hookups and that the Owner will be responsible for the payment thereof in accordance with established City policies. DIVISION 6 - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 6.1 That the Owner will be required to pay SAC charges as described in Exhibit I. 6.2 That the Owner shall rovide for P r of surve monuments as comprehended under Chapter 15 of the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances. Said monumentation shall consist of installation of cast iron monuments at all block corners and cast iron or steel pipes or rods at all interior lot corners, points of deflection of block lines, and points of deflection of lot lines. The Owner shall provide a financial guarantee in the amount of $1,000.00 to guarantee said monumentation shall be installed within 30 days of approval of the final plat by the Brooklyn Center City Council.- Said financial guarantee shall be provided in conjunction with those improvements considered necessary under Division 2 of this Agreement. 6.3 That, upon installation of lateral water mains and /or lateral sanitary sewer mains within the Subdivision, the Owner shall P rovide an as built survey, accurately depicting the location of said utilities. In addition, the Owner shall execute a Water and Sewer Main and Fire Hydrant Maintenance and Inspection Agreement, included herewith as Exhibit G, for all utility installations, both existing and proposed. 6.4- That the City shall be responsible for minimal maintenance of the Xerxes Avenue North bridge approach backslopes at F.A.I. 94 (i.e. mowing of turf 2 or 3 times per year only) abutting the Subdivision. The Owner shall be responsible for maintenance of the backslope turf if he desires more frequent mowing of the area abutting the Subdivision. 6.5 That the Owner will not be granted Certificates of Occupancy for the development of the Subdivision until such time as all improvements comprehended under Division 2 have been P completed and .approved by the City of Brooklyn Center. 6.6 That the Owner will be required to pay all City "out of pocket" expenses incurred for legal services related to the platting of the Subdivision (Dee Welty Addition). 6.7 That the final plat of Dee Welty Addition shall acknowledge the existence of roadway dedication along the westerly boundary of the Subdivision at Xerxes Avenue North. Subsequent to the filing of said final plat at the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles Office, the City shall proceed with the renaming of said roadway in accordance with established City Ordinances. The Owner shall not be responsible for said roadway renaming. 6.8 That the following exhibit, attached hereon, is made a part hereof by this reference: Exhibit D - proposed final plat of Dee Welty Addition (Planning Commission Application No. 83042). 6.9 That, in the event of presently unforeseen circumstances brought about by causes beyond the control of the Owner or the City, which makes the development of the Subdivision impractical or impossible, this agreement may be voided. Majority vote of the City Council shall be required for recognition that such unforeseen circumstances in fact exist, such action to void this agreement shall not be taken if, in the judgement of the Council, irreparable damage to the City and the public interest would result from such action. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands this day of 19 Robert Welty EXHIBIT A IMPROVEMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER BITUMINOUS PAVING: Removal of the existing 20 foot bituminous surface on "old" Xerxes Avenue and surfacing of a 30 foot residential street consisting of 2'inches of MN /DOT Specification 2341 Wear course and 4 inches of MN /DOT Class 5 aggregate Base on a prepared subgrade of at least 12 inches of select granular material. Estimated Cost (9,260.00) CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER: Construction of concrete curb and gutter along the easterly side of "old" Xerxes Avenue only, retaining the existing bituminous curb along the westerly side. Estimated Cost - ( 2,970.00) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Construction of concrete driveway aprons for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1 Dee Welty Addition. Estimated Cost (2,250.00) LANDSCAPING: Placement of sod on 4 inches of topsoil along disturbed areas behind the curb along "old" Xerxes Avenue and within the boulevard of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block l Dee Welty Addition. Estimated Cost (1,930.00) Placement of one boulevard hardwood tree having a trunk diameter (measured 12 inches above the ground) of not less than 1.75 inches in each of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1 Dee Welty Addition. Estimated Cost (270.00) TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - $16,680.00 EXHIBIT B UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND HOOKUP CHARGES A. Responsibility of Utility Service Extension It is the responsibility of the Owner to install all water and sanitary sewer services required to serve the Subdivision. B. Hookup Charges The Owner acknowledges the benefit received from the municipal utility system and agrees to pay utility hookup charges as set forth below. Said charges shall be levied as special assessments against the lots of the Subdivision pursuant to the issuance of utility permits for connection of the lots to the municipal utility system. The assessment period, shall be twenty (20) years and the interest rate shall be determined by the City Council at the time the special assessment levies are adopted. The Owner acknowledges that the hookup charges are subject to an annual adjustment as determined by the City Council, based on the Consumer Price Index and that the actual rate used to determine the assessment shall be that in effect when a utility connection permit is issued for connection to the municipal utility system. The estimated assessments based on the 1986 hookup charge rates are; Assessable Credit Frontage For Unit Rate For Sanitary Sanitary Charge For Sanitary Assessment Service Sewer Water Sewer Rate Extension Hookup Proposed Hookup Hookup (Per Foot) By Owner Charge Lot 1, Block 1 $2,579.00 90.50 Ft $ Lot 2, Block 1 $2,579.00 70.45 Ft $ Lot 3, Block 1 $2,579.00 86.44 Ft $ EXHIBIT C SERVICE AVAILABILITY CHARGE The Service Availability Charge (SAC) shall be levied against the parcel at the time a building permit is issued. The SAC charge is a one time charge to pay the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the debt service on reserve, or unused capacity available for future wastewater flow to the area's interceptors and treatment plant in accordance with the provisions of Subdivision 3 and 4 of Minnesota Statutes 473C.08. Single family houses shall be responsible for payment of one SAC unit. The unit charge, which is subject to adjustment by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, has been established at $475.00 for 1986. EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 11, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George.Lucht at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas and Carl Sandstrom. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August Aust 4, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson and Ainas. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS 83042 AND 83043 (Robert D. Welty) Following the Chairman s explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of Xerxes Avenue North and I -94 and also a request for a' variance from Section 15 -106 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a lot with an average depth of 110' and another lot with less than 60' of frontage. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 83042 and 83043 attached). Commissioner Simmons pointed out that if the property were divided into two lots, it would be possible for Lot l to have 60' of frontage. She asked whether the southerly lot would still need a variance for lot depth. The Secretary stated that that was likely. Commissioner Simmons concluded that if .there were only two lots, a variance would still' be required. The Secretary agreed. He stated that the Planning Commission should evaluate what is a reasonable subdivision of the property in question. He pointed out that the lots all meet the area requirement and that area is probably the most important single requirement to be met. He stated that a case could be made for three or for two lots. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt three lots was a reasonable subdivision of the property. Com mftsioner Sandstrom pointed out that Lot 1 is already very large and would be even larger if the property were subdivided into two lots. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Jeff Lindgren of Hedlund Engineering, representing Mr. Welty, stated that he had no problems with the con- ditions recommended for the approval of the-plat. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the applicant was willing to pay the cost of the road improvement. Mr. Jeff Lindgren answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the buildings shown on the preliminary plat were actual plans for construction or just comcepts. Mr. Lindgren answered that Mr. Welty would probably build the houses as shown on the preliminary plat. Commissioner Simmons asked how large the houses were. hlr. Lindgren answered that the houses were of the average size. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 83042 and 33043) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the preliminary plat and the variance applications. He asked whether anyone present wished to 8 -11 -33 -1- he had probably talked to Mr. Seim. He pointed out that property, under its present legal description as an Outlot, was unbuildable by definition. He stated that he had told people who. inquired about the lot that the burden of proof to show that the property is buildable would be on the owner. He explained that he had never talked to . 1 4r. Welty and that Mr. -Welty had gone ahead and shown that the property was indeed buildable. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 83043 (Robert D. Welty) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83043 on the grounds that the Standards for a Subdivision Ordinance Variance are met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83042 (Robert D. Welty) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83042, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the widening of "old" Xerxes to a full street width and extension of public utilities to the respective lots. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sand- strom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 8 -11 -83 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83042 Applicant: Robert D. Welty Location: 66th and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat: The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the parcel of land at the southwest quadrant of I -94 and Xerxes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the north by -I -94 on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the south by public right -of -way between Xerxes Avenue North and the old Xerxes Avenue North right -of -way, and on the west by "old Xerxes and a single- family residence. The property was recently acquired at an auction of tax- forfeited property. The existing parcel is described as Outlot G, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addi- tion. An outlot is unbuildable by definition under the City's Subdivision Ordi- nance. The proposed legal description is Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Dee Welty Addition. The existing parcel is 33,390 sq. ft. The new parcels have the following characteristics: L egal Description Area Frontage Width Average Depth Lot 1 12,152 s.f. 20' 98' 125' Lot 2 9,500 s.f. 61' 75' 114' Lot 3 11,738 s.f. 148' 148' 80' The proposed lots meet ordinance requirements except for lot depth on Lot 3 -and frontage on Lot 1. A separate application (No. 83043) has been filed requesting 'a variance from these provisions. All three lots have sufficient buildable area to locate a normal residence and two -car garage within required setbacks. The setback off Xerxes Avenue North is 25.', from I -94, 10' (because of presence of noise wall). The setback from "old" Xerxes Avenue North from which the lots will gain access is superceded by an NSP power line easement which is 55.5' wide over Lot 1 and 35.5' wide over Lots 2 and 3. The street serving these lots is only a half- street (20' wide paved area) al- though there is 50' of right -of -way. Both 66th AVenue North and Quarles Road, which are the two nearest cross streets, also have 50' rights -of -way with _full size(30' wide) streets. Water and sewer are available in "old" Xerxes Avenue North, but no service leads have been extended to the property line. City staff recommend that the existing half- street be widened to a full 30' width, allowing for 10'wide boulevards. A subdivision agreement establishing responsibility for public improvements and assessing costs will be required. Subject to approval of Application No. 83043, the plat generally appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City stipulating the widening of "old" Xerxes to a full street width and extension of public utilities*to the respective lots. 8 -11 -83 �- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83043 lo ll Applicant: Robert D. Welty Location: 66th and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Variance . The applicant regests a variance from Section 15 -106 of the Subdivision Ordinance (attached) to allow a lot with an average depth of 80' rather than the required 110' and to allow a lot with only 20' of street frontage rather than the required 60'. The lots in question are Lots l (frontage) and-3 (depth) of the proposed Dee Welty Addition ( see Application No. .83042). The land in question is zoned R1 and is ,bounded on the north by I -94, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North,on the south by right -of -way extending between Xerxes and the "old" Xerxes Avenue North right-of- way, and on the west by "old" Xerxes and a single- family residence. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he addresses the Standards for a Subdivision variance (also attached). He points out that the existing parcel has ample area and street frontage for the three proposed lots, but that the variances are needed to obtain an aesthetic configuration of the lot lines. He states that development of the parcel with less than three lots would "seriously deprive the .petitioner of his right to fully realize the best investment standards of which he is entitled." He states that the improvement costs would be sub- stantially the same whether 1, 2 or 3 lots are developed. Finally, he states that there would be no detrimental effect to the public welfare; rather the public would benefit from an increased tax base. He notes there would be no greater cost maintaining the street if the variance is granted. The Subdivision Ordinance provides that the City Council may grant a variance . when, in its opinion, an undue-hardship may result from strict compliance. To grant such •a variance, the Council must find: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting said property such that the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which said property is situated. The parcel in question, Outlot G, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition, was created in 1967 when the alignment of the Xerxes Avenue bridge and Xerxes Avenue North right -of -way were dedicated. It is apparently a remnant parcel from the original Earle Brown Farm which could not be incoporated into the Industrial Park because of the alignment of the freeway. The power line easement running along the west side of the property was included in the original 1967 plat. It should be noted that there were a number of parcels created as outlots in the Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition plat, most of which were quite large. The fact that the parcels were designated as outlots did not necessarily mean that they were too small to be developed. 8 -11 -83 -1- PLAP?f1IYG CO ?•7fISSI014 APPLICATION PAS. 83042 A_T.'D 83043 EMITTED BY ROBERT D. I TY - r' Rill Kill • c� t u „ v :"^,TICTi 'Ti: u i rrt. a tr;FOi Zvi L� i , .7U " ?'rC` .. U T , " i _a4 / . i C. Affi 1, i , I TTM, :`.iZ` I L.7ih i A T57 ' G1: L7 tfi ��i �A] f ;'JFO �.c'F Ki LOT �f" iF M;s Tin: m b SIT r`T I ZL: - e- birecto o - Planning W pection presented -an reviewed for Council members pages 1 throu €h 3 of the August 11, 1983 Planning Commission meeting minutes, and 8 - 22 - 83 - 14- also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for the applications. He then reviewed the location of the subject parcel, which is described as an outlot. He noted that, by definition in. the City's zoning ordinance, an outl is �,• unbuildable. The Planning Director reviewed the proposed legal descriptions_ and dimensions of the three parcels proposed by the application. He *then reviewed for Council members the request for variances submitted by the applicant and noted the necessity for a full 30' wide street extension to service the lots. He explained the applicant had submitted a letter regarding the standards for a subdivision ordinance variance. He then reviewed the Planning Commission's consideration of the applicant's variance request. Following a public hearing, the Planning Director pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application Nos. 83043 and 83042, subject to conditions which he reviewed for Council members. i Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application Nos. 83043 and 83042. He recognized an individual in the audience who stated that he was a resident who lived on the west side of the proposed application, and inquired how the driveway would access the roadway. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the anticipated access to the roadway from the subject parcel Mayor Nyquist recognized a representative of Mr.. Robert Welty who requested clarification of the Planning Commission's discussion regarding the assessment for the widening of Xerxes Avenue to Quarles Road. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the property owners which would be assessed for the street widening. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else 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 on Planning Commission Application Nos. 83042 and 83043. 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 Hawes to approve Application No. 83043 on the grounds that the standards for a subdivision ordinance variance are met. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 83042, subject to the following conditions: 1 The final plat is subject to review and approval by the . City .Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. The applicant shall enter into a.subdivision agreement with 1 the City stipulating the widening of "old" Xerxes to a full street width and extension of public to the 8 -22-83 -15- respective lots. The cost of widening "old" Xerxes to a . full street width and extension of public utilities to the respective lots shall be paid by-the applicant. Voting in favor: h;ayor Nyquist, Councilmembers hhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR FOUR (4) FOUR -DOOR POLICE PATROL SEDANS WHEREAS, written quotations were accepted for the purchase of Four (4) Four -Door Police Patrol Sedans. WHEREAS, the quotations received were as follows BIDDER QUOTATION Viking Chevrolet Co. $45,860.00 Brookdale Ford $45,564.00 Polar Chevrolet & Mazda $46,188.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the quotation for Four (4) Four -Door Police Patrol Sedans from Viking Chevrolet in the amount of $45,860 is hereby accepted and the City Manager is hereby authorized to contract for the purchase of the Police Patrol Sedans in the amount of $45,860 from Viking Chevrolet. 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. 8 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 33,000 GVW CAB AND CHASSIS BE IT RESOLVED By THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specification for the delivery of One (1) 33,000 GVW Cab and Chassis is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the delivery of One (1)'33,000 GVW Cab and Chassis in accordance with said specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 PROVISIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 33,000 GVW CAB /CHASSIS 1. GENERAL All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on or before 11 :00 a.m., February 13, 1986, and shall be submitted on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed envelope plainly marked "Bid for 33,000 GVW Cab /Chassis. It is also understood that the City Council reserves the right to reject any or all bids, to waive informalities and to award the contract in the best interest of the City. The cab /chassis proposed and delivered to the City of Brooklyn Center shall be complete in every respect and ready for operation in accordance with these specifications, with certificates of service and inspection submitted at the time of delivery. Manufacturer's reference, trade name, brand, or description mentioned in this proposal are descriptive but not restrictive and used only to indicate type and standard of material or equipment desired. The cab /chassis the bidder proposes to furnish must be of a current production. Obsolete equipment is not acceptable. Catalog information showing make, model, and complete specifications of the cab /chassis the bidder proposes to furnish shall accompany the vendor's bid. Insufficient descriptive information shall be cause for rejection of the bid. The bidder must give assurance to the City of Brooklyn Center in regard to patent infringements and in case of suits against the City by other parties. He must defray all costs in connection with such suit and save the City harmless in all such actions. 2. GUARANTEE The bidder shall furnish a manufacturer's standard new truck warranty as a minimum and shall guarantee the equipment as to the specified capacity and satisfactory performance and to be free of defects in design, material, and workmanship. All defective parts, material and labor shall be replaced free of cost to the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. DELIVERY DATE The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City of Brooklyn Center for the earliest date possible. - 4. AWARD OF 'CONTRACT Award of contract by the City of Brooklyn Center will be based on, but not necessarily limited to the factors of price, delivery date, parts and service; as well as analysis and comparison of specifications and performance. 5. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFICATIONS Any objections to the specifications must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing five (5) days prior to the opening of the bids. i PROPOSAL ONE (1) 33,000 GVW TRUCK CAB /CHASSIS Honorable City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Gentlemen: We proposed to furnish and deliver one (1) 33,000 GVW Truck Cab /Chassis according to the specifications at the following bid price: Bid price Delivery Date (calendar days) Signed Firm Name Address City Zip Telephone Date Bid Opening: 11:00 a.m. February 13 1986 VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS GVW 33,000 pound minimum Wheel Base 177 inch wheel base 102 inch cab to axle dimension Frame Section modules including reinforcements shall be not less than 15.9 with a rbm of not less than 915,000 inch pounds. Provide extended integral front frame, with an additional crossmember. Furnish front PTO adapter. Engine Gasoline powered, V -8 design, 400 cubic inch minimum 206 HP minimum, equipped with full flow oil filter, fuel filter, air cleaner and governor. Axles Front - 12,000 pound capacity minimum Rear - 21,000 pound capacity minimum Transmission Allison Automatic MT 653 or equal Springs Front - 6800 # each at ground minimum Rear 11,670 # each at ground minimum Auxiliary - 2200 # capacity minimum Brakes Service - hydraulic, split system, 1000 cubic inch vacuum reservoir Parking Hydro -max brake system - dash mounted Steering Power assist Fuel Tank 50 gallon capacity minimum Step tank mounted on passenger side of truck Cab Standard cab shall include: Bostrom T -Bar model driver seat Bostrom companion seat Dual exterior rear view mirrors 6 x 16 Retrac Dual sunvisors Dual exterior grab handles Full headliner, rubber floor mat High output heater and defroster Hand throttle Windshield wipers 2 speed, electric Dash mounted A.M. radio All glass tinted VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS - CONTINUED Electrical Alternator - 90 amp minimum Gauges ammeter, oil, water temperature & tachometer Battery - one (1) maintenance free, 535CCA at 0 degrees F Wheels & Tires Cast spoke design wheels, 2 piece rims = 8.0" minimum First line tube type tires 10.00 x 20R, 14 ply Regular thread front, on -off highway tread rear Bidder to furnish spare rim, also furnish and install mechanical back -up alarm on rear wheel Bumper Front Color Chrome yellow g14 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) FOUR -WHEEL UTILITY VEHICLE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the specification for the delivery of One (1) Four Wheel Utility Vehicle is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for and receive bids for the delivery of one (1) Four-Wheel Utility Vehicle in accordance with said specifications. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Request for Written Quotations for One (1) Current Model Four (4) Wheeled Vehicle with Hydraulic Dump Flatbed Box, to be used for Maintenance in City Parks Body Four (4) wheel turf chassis with, horn, ommeter, light switch, front bumper, tow hitch, pin disconnect, hand throttle, hour meter, speedometer, tachometer, gas gauge Engine 22 HP, 2 cylinder, air cooled, 4 cycle, gasoline, electric start Transmission 3 speed with hi low range, 2 :1 reducing auxiliary Tires Turf type 18 -850 x 8 - 4 ply turf rib front 18 -950 x 8 6 ply turf tread - ream Wheelbase 84 inch Seat 2 Passenger with backrest and seat belts, hip restraints and hand holds Brakes 4 wheel hydraulic service brakes Disc -type on drive shaft parking brakes Clutch Automotive type Hydraulics Live power Steering Automotive type steering wheel Pto Shaft extension Manuals 2 complete sets of service and parts manuals Warranty Shall include manufacturers new vehicle warranty Written quotations must be received no later than 11:00 a.m., February 13th, 1986. Quotes should be sent to: City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Attn: Dick Ploumen For additional information you may call Dick Ploumen at 561 - 5440 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its �l adoption: 0 RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1986 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need for a display booth that was not appropriated upon the adoption of the 1986 General Fund Budget; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1986 General Fund Budget as follows: Transfer the amount of $3,000 from the Unallocated Departmental Expenses Contingency Account No. 01 - 4995 - 000-80 appropriation to the City Manager's Office Other Equipment Account No. 01- 1 4552 - 000 -00 appropriation. Date - FEyor � 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. M & C NO. 86 -03 January 23, 1986 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Portable Display Booth To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: I believe the Council will recall the display booth that was used in the All American City contest in Cincinnati. This booth was set up in the lobby of City Hall approximately a month ago to celebrate our presentation at that event. That particular booth belongs to Health Central, and they kindly consented to allow the Chamber and the City to use it for that display. We are finding there is a considerable number of requests for that booth and with the 75th Anniversary celebration, there are even more possibilities for its use. The problem is the graphics and pictures are owned by the Chamber and the City, but the booth itself, as stated before, is owned by Health Central. Their use of the booth and our use of the booth, I am sure, will be coming into conflict on a regular basis given the demand for that display. Paul Holmlund and I have long believed the City should have some kind of a display booth for the various activities the City finds itself involved in such as Kaleidoscope and other community promotion activities. Because the All American City graphic arts for this display are already purchased, we checked with the company that provided the display booth to Health Central and received some price quotes on a similar display. A display booth with the lighting looking very much, if not identical, to the four vertical panel booth that was used in the display in our lobby last month, would cost approximately $3,000. The booth itself is completely portable and it comes apart into eight pieces that are stored in portable carrying cases. Neither Paul nor I anticipated the demand for this sort of a booth otherwise we would have provided for it in the 1 86 Budget. Now with the 75th Anniversary and the All American City contest it seems obvious that the City could use one of these type of booths on a regular basis. The demand for it will probably occur most heavily in the next 12 months. This type of booth will, I am sure, be used in years to come on a steady basis but not nearly as much as it will be in the next 12 months. We are recommending authorization of a purchase of this piece of equipment out of the Council's Contingency Fund, and attached is a resolution authorizing the transfer of funds to the Capital Outlay Account of the City Manager's Office. Respectfully submitted, A � 4 Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 16,1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1985 Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL - 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. The Secretary noted that Commissioner Malecki had called to say she would be unable to attend and Commissioner Sandstrom had informed the Commission that he would be on vacation in January. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 17, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the December 17, 1985 Planning Commission as submitted. Voting in favor Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1985 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the 1985 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The 1985 Planning Commission adjourned at 7:34 p.m. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the Oath of Office to Commissioners Nelson and Wallerstedt for a two year term to expire at the end of 1987. CALL TO ORDER 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1986 Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL - 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. ELECT 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for nominations for 1986 Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner Ainas nonimated George Lucht to be 1986 Planning Commission Chairman. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to close nominations for 1986 Planning Commission Chairman. 1 -16 -86 -1- ELECTION OF 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN Voting in favor of George Lucht to be 1986 Planning Commission Chairman: Commissioners Ainas, Nelson and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. George Lucht was elected 1986 Planning Commission Chairman. ELECT 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Commissioner Ainas nominated Commissioner Malecki for Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Malecki had expressed to him that she had no desire to serve in the capacity of Chairman or Chairman Pro tem. Commissioner Bernards nominated Commissioner Nelson to be 1986 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Ainas. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any other nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to close nominations for 1986 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. The motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TEM Voting in favor of Commissioner Nelson for 1986 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ainas, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Commissioner Nelson was elected 1986 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. APPLICATION NO. 86001 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land which is the site of the 7100 Corporate Plaza office development at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86001 attached). In response to a question from Commissioner Wallerstedt regarding setbacks, the Secretary explained that the setbacks for the interior lot would be essentially the same as they were for the original plat except that along the common property line, there would be a minimum of a 10' sideyard setback applied. He stated that it was difficult to determine what setback should be applied in the case of a landlocked parcel, but that the minimum would have to be at least 10 feet. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Dave Nelson stated that his firm would be bringing a site and building plan proposal for the second phase of the office development in six or seven weeks. He explained that separate loans for the two different office buildings required separate parcels. Chairman Lucht asked whether it would be possible to move the future office building to a 10' setback as required. Mr. Nelson stated that this would not pose a problem since there was a little bit of extra room on the property. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked Mr. Nelson why the property was being subdivided. Mr. Nelson explained that the plans had originally been for one building of 24,000 sq. ft. He stated that one large tenant wished to take the entire first phase of a two phase development. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked who that tenant was. Mr. 1 -16 -86 -2- Nelson responded that it was Edina Realty. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked what kinds of tenants were expected in the second building. Mr. Nelson stated that he was negotiating with an employment agency and an insurance agency. In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding required changes, Mr. Nelson stated that the changes requested in the staff report would be made immediately. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Nelson if he had any problem with the conditions. Mr. Nelson stated that he had read them and he has no problem with them. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 86001) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Noting that there was no one else present to speak regarding the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86001 (Uhde /Nelson, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 86001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the _City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3 • An easement agreement to provide access to Lot 2 across Lot l of the proposed plat shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the plat at the County. 4. A utility easement shall be indicated on the preliminary plat for all common utilities prior to release of the final plat for filing. 5. Site and building plans for the second phase of the office complex shall be revised to provide for a minimum 10' sideyard setback along the west property line (other setback requirements assumed to be met). Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM (Neighborhood Advisory Groups) The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission the current function of Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He stated that their primary function is to review a rezoning request within a given neighborhood when such a request may arise. He stated that the staff and the Year 2000 Committee discussed using Neighborhood Advisory Groups for other planning issues as well. He pointed out that Neighborhood Advisory Groups participated in review of the City's updated Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that there are park service committees which cover similar neighborhood areas within the City. 1 -16 -86 -3- v The Secretary stated that these groups may, in the future, be asked to comment on a broader range of issues besides just rezonings. He cited as an example the problem of reducing cut- through traffic within the Central Neighborhood between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North between 59th Avenue North and 63rd Avenue North. He stated that one solution would be to close off 59th Avenue North to through traffic. This, he said, would probably shift the traffic up one block to 60th Avenue North. The problem, he stated, would keep moving northward until all the streets were closed off at some point in their journey between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. He stated that the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group could meet to consider various options for alleviating the cut- through traffic problem and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would in turn make a recommendation to the City Council to perhaps adopt a revision to the street system in the neighborhood. There followed a brief discussion of contacting members of the Neighborhood Advisory Groups to see if they are still interested and if they still live in the area, and of the role of Planning Commissioners as liasions to the various Neighborhood Advisory Groups. Commissioner Wallerstedt suggested that a school closing might be an appropriate subject for such an advisory group to consider. The Secretary explained that the Planning Commission served as the advisory group for the central commercial and industrial area formerly the Earle Brown Farm. He reviewed the boundaries of the various neighborhoods. Commissioner Ainas noted that one member of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had wanted to have input on any significant item in the neighborhood. He stated that he had transmitted the problems of timing such comment with the normal review of Planning Commission items. The Secretary stated that he did not recommend sending normal business items to a Neighborhood Advisory Group such as site and building plan or plat approvals. He stated that rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments and traffic concerns offer a longer time frame for review that could allow for such neighborhood input. The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission various assignments which had been handed out by the Year 2000 Committee Report to the Planning Commission. One of these, he noted, was the subject of cut - through traffic in residential areas. He noted other study assignments such as the changing focus from a development to a maintenance community and the need for a redevelopment policy; the aging of the commercial and industrial buildings; merging of the Year 2000 Report with the Comprehensive Plan; a report on the format for a long range planning process, and other issues. The Secretary also noted that the Planning Commission should take up a review of the Sign Ordinance and a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Chairman 1 -16 -8 _ 6 4- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 86001 Applicant: Uhde Nelson Location: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the site of the 7100 Corporate Plaza office development at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by the Brooklyn United Methodist Church parking lot and by single - family lots, on the east by a single- family lot and the parkin lot for the Boulevard Plaza office condominium development, 9 P on the south by that office development, and on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard. This site, formerly the site of the Brooklyn Center City Hall, was platted into a single parcel in the Spring of 1985. The proposed plat would divide this parcel into an easterly lot, Lot 2 (24,945 sq. ft.) and a westerly lot, Lot 1 (48,080 sq. ft.). Lot 1 meets the one acre requirement for office lots adjacent to a major thoroughfare. Lot 2 will be landlocked. Therefore, an easement for access must be provided across Lot l for access to Lot 2 and should be filed with the plat at the County. A common set of site utilities serves both proposed lots. A utility easement should, therefore, be indicated across the entire plat to protect each parcel's interest in the common utility network. The proposed property line separating Lots 1 and 2 is basically along the construction phase line between the east and west buildings of the 7100 Corporate Center project. Each lot possesses enough parking to meet the requirements of the building on or planned for it. One problem is that the proposed easterly building is planned only 8' from the proposed property line. Since Lot 2 is landlocked, it is somewhat un- certain as to what setback requirements apply along which property lines. However, it is clear that 10' is the absolute minimum acceptable, given that the two buildings are not attached. Site and building plan, approval for the second phase has only been conceptual to this point and no setback variance is officially implied by approval of the proposed plat. It is clear that when the second phase is pursued with a site and building'plan, some revision will have to be made to provide a TO' side interior setback. Although some additional information needs to be provided on the preliminary plat, staff feel it can be acted upon favorably subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. An easement agreement to provide access to Lot 2 across Lot 1 of the proposed plat shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the plat at the County. 4. A utility easement shall be indicated on the preliminary plat for all common utilities prior to release of the final plat for filing.. 5. Site and building plans for the second phase of the office complex shall be revised to provide for a minimum 10' sideyard setback along the west` property line (other setback requirements assumed to be met). 1 -16 -86 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27th day of January, 1986 at 8:00 p.m• at the City Fall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance regarding Rummage Sale Signs. 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 arrangments. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 REGARDING RUMMAGE SALE SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34 -110 and 35 -900 of the City Ordinances are hereby amended in the following manner: Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant on his or her premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used and appliances, provided the exchange or sale of merchandise is conducted within the residence or accessory structure; the number of sales does not exceed four (4) per year; the duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) consecutive days; any related signery shall [be limited to the premises and to other residential property provided that property owner''s permission has been obtained to display such signery, shall] conform with the sign ordinance provisions [for home occupations and shall be removed at the termination of said sale]I and the conduct of the sale does not Encroach upon the peace, health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Section 2. Section 34 -130 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manners Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS. ?. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, [and] stringers or similar attention attracting devices, unless approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35 -800 or in Section 34- 140, Subdivision 2m of the City Ordinances. 11. Billboards, except as provided in Section 34 -140,; Subdivision 2c, 2f, 2h, 2i, 2k, 21(1); or billboards which may be approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35 800 of the City Ordinances; and certain rummage sale billboards as provided in Section [34 -110] 34 -140, Subdivision 2m of the City" Ordinances. Section 3. Section 34 -140 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended by the addition of the following: ORDINANCE N0. Section 34 -140. 2. Permuted Signs Not Requiring a Permit. i M. Rummage Sale Signs as follows: 1_. A temporary on -site sign not exceeding 10 square feet in area, identifying the location of and /or information relating to a rummage sale. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons or similar attention attracting devices may also be displayed on tie p roperty where the sale is being conducted. The sign and otter devices may be displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. 2. Temporary off -site signs not exceeding 10 square feet in area, indicating the location and /or time of a rummage sal may be located on other residen property not commercial, industrial or public property provided that property owner's permission has been obtained to display such signery. These signs may displayed for the duration of the sale only, and must be removed at its termination. 3. Rummage sale signs must conform in all other respects with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of lg Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) i CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27th day of January , 1986 at 8:00 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating An Easement in Lot 2, Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least, 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT IN LOT 2, BLOCK 2, THOMAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 2ND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Any interest, ownership or license to the North 277.18 feet of the East 5.0 feet, as measured perpendicular, from the East line said North 277.18 feet, of Lot 2. Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition, on file with the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota is hereby vacated. Section 2. This ordinance Fhall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of Mayor ATTEST Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date } CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is 'hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 27th. day of Jranuaxv _ , 1986 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance regarding wall signs for enclosed shopping malls. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MENDING CHAPTER 34 REGARDING WALL SIGNS FOR ENCLOSED SHOPPING MALLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34 -140 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the following manner: 3. Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit a. Commercial (C2 and Industrial I -1 and I -2) Districts 1. Wall Signs and Projecting Signs b. Clustered Establishments Attached establishments or enterprises clustered in a shopping center complex or in a multi- tenant office or industrial building may have wall signs or projecting signs subject to the following: i. Each establishment or enterprise may have such signs on each of its exterior walls, provided the aggregate area of such signs does not exceed 30% of the wall supporting the signs; ii. In lieu of the above, the aggregate of the establishments or enterprises may have a <wall or projecting sign on each wall identifying the tenants collectively, or identifying the complex or building; P g provided the area of each sign does not exceed 30% of the area of the wall supporting it. iii. Each establishment or enterprises located within an enclosed shopping center mall may have signs on exterior walls identifying tenants separately and /or collectively, or identifying the complex or building; provided the aggregate area of the sign or signs does not exceed 10 of the area of the wall supporting Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30)days following its legal publication. ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of lg F yor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) M & C NO._ 86 -01/,� January 8, 1986 / FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Year 2000 Study Implementation Report To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached please find a copy of a staff assignment table for the Year 2000 trends, issues and other report items. This listing of assignments lists all of the trends and issues and other suggested recommendations from the Year 2000 Report, assigns an individual on the staff to follow through on that report, and suggests a date when follow through will be completed. Some of the items assigned to Ms. Barone, Mr. Knapp, Mr. Warren and Mr. Hoffman are items they will be working on with the various involved advisory committees and commissions. One of the items I would like to discuss further with you at the City Council meeting is the process we should use in working with the advisory commissions on these general issues and trends. There are a number of options available to the Council and the staff in handling the development of policies and policy statements on these various issues. One alternative is for the Council to request staff work with the various advisory commissions and other involved agencies and develop final drafts of policies to be presented to the City Council for their review and approval. Another alternative is for the staff to develop preliminary reports on these issues, trends, and statements, the City Council review the initial work and then make recommendations for referral to staff and advisory commissions, and as a final step the final product be brought back to the Council for review and approval. I am sure there are a number of other combinations of methods for development of these policy statements and reports, but I would recommend the Council consider the latter approach rather than the first one stated. I am suggesting the second alternative because it offers the Council an opportunity for input in the early stages of the report or policy development and as always, the final approval. Obviously, the development of some of these issues and policy statements are going to call for differing approaches, but I believe if the Council, staff and advisory commissions can agree on a general approach early in the process, it will save us time, effort and grief during the latter stages. I' 11 be prepared to discuss any of the assignments or the due dates with the Council at your Council meeting, and I would hope that you would have some suggestions as to the policy development process. Resp 1 submitted, Gerald . Splinter City Mat ger YEAR 2000 REPORT STAFF ASSIGNMENTS 1 -3 -86 ASSIGNED DUE TRENDS- ISSUES TO DATE 1. Single parent households Barone July, '1987 increasing as a percentage Human Rights of households 2. Balance among age groups in Warren July, 1986 population will change 3. Aging population - Brooklyn Splinter July, 1986 Center and "Inner Ring" suburbs 4. Problems with.landfills may Knapp May, 1986 require mandatory recycling 5. Storm water drainage through Knapp May, 1986 Brooklyn Center affects local systems 6. Quality of domestic water supply Knapp, Heenan May, 1986 7. Safety problems of Crystal Staff Ongoing Airport 8. Rapid technological advancement Holmlund July, 1986 9. Public physical facility aging Knapp July, 1987 10. Continuing need for energy Warren July, 1986 conservation 11. Change will occur more frequently Staff Ongoing and more pervasively 12. Greater potential for City Barone January, 1987 involvement in social and Human Rights human resource service delivery 13. Minimal 1-tries -ate Completed ncrr -t test--net-re -area 14. Fostering a pleasant urban Knapp March, 1987 environment 15. Completion of park development Mavis March, 1987 plan 16. Historic preservation of Staff Ongoing Earle Brown Farm 17. "Cut- through" traffic in Knapp December, 1986 residential areas Planning Com. 18. 70% of housing stock 40'years Hoffman July, 1987 old by Year 2000 (apartments Housing Com. will also be aging) 19. City is changing its focus Hoffman July, 1987 from "development" to "mainte- Housing and nance and redevelopment" Planning Coma 20. Economy is trending toward an Staff Ongoing international base 21. Frost belt geographic location Staff Ongoing 22. City will continue as the Staff Ongoing junction of major transpor- tation corridors with increasing volumes of traffic 23• Gradual increase in age of Staff Ongoing commercial and industrial Planning Coma buildings 24. Communication of community Splinter July, 1986 needs, plans and goals 25• Four school districts Splinter December, 1986 serving Brooklyn Center 26. Intergovernmental cooperation Council Ongoing and coordination 27. Balance among Brooklyn Center Warren March, 1986 land uses 28. Criteria for ordinance and Council Ongoing regulation development 29. Viability and effectiveness Warren December, 1986 of building maintenance codes 30. Zoning, building, and land use Warren December, 1988 regulations will be challenged by redevelopment pressures 31.. More problems originating Staff Ongoing outside City rather than from Council within 32. Continued citizen awareness Staff Ongoing and involvement Council OTHER ITEMS Merge Year 2000 Report with Warren December, 1986 Comprehensive Plan Planning Com. Report on format for biennial Splinter September, 1986 planning process Council and Planning Com. Review advisory commissions' Barone December, 1986 by -laws and structure and All Commissions recommend a common format Prepare analysis of creating Splinter July, 1986 an elderly component of the Council and Comprehensive Guide Plan Planning Com. Use of Neighborhood Advisory Splinter July, 1986 Commissions Planning Com. D EPARTMENT /1k CITY OF OF !B ROOKLYN FINANCE CENTER I MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: January 22, 1986 SUBJECT: REQUEST CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT OF ONE SEWER BACK -UP CLAIM Since the City Council on December 30, 1985 approved the payment of twelve sewer back -up claims, our independent insurance adjuster has reached a settlement with another claimant. I believe this is the final claim to be settled of those claims made because of a sewer back -up which occurred on January 30, 1985. Would you please ask the Council to approve payment in the amount of $3,375.96 to Mark Johnson, 2712 O'Henry Road? Upon payment, and subsequent receipt of assignment of claim from Mr. Johnson, I will forward all of the assignments of claims to the City Attorney so that he may seek recovery from the loss from Mike Paul Electric, Inc. and /or others. Paul W. Holmlund "'Jlre .SoNCetlucg �1Zoae ,• Le1+e� °ere LcHcr Kented%. (Y11ricn ! I)ralvz t Plolussional tssuciatiun 2000 First Bank Place West January 21, 1986 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Mr. Paul Holmlund Clayton L. LeFevere Finance Director Herbert P. Lefler CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawl 6301 - Shingle Creek Parkway David J. Kennedy Brookly Ce t 5543 Minnesota 0 _:ohn B. Dean �;ienn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Re: Lift Station #1 Failure Charles L. LeFevere Herbert Lefler III Dear Mr. Holmlund: James J. . Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dayle Nolan Enclosed is a report of the claims adjuster dated January Brian G Rice 3, 19 8 6, showi y John G. Kressel g a claim b Mark Johnson for $3,375.96. Lorraine S. Clugg James M. Strommen Also enclosed is a copy of the assignment I have 'drafted RAM Batty P. Jordan with respect to this claim. P. S3WDickel Minsberg Kurt J. Erickson Sincerely, William R. Skallerud Rodney D. Anderson Corrine A. Heine LeFevere, Lefler, Kennedy, John R. McDonald Jr. O'Brien & Drawz Richard J. Schieffer RJS:krs Enclosures 172(8/78) GAB Report Date THIRD 1 -3 - 86 Telephone No. GAB Office 4640 West 77th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 612 - 831 -8444 Address Insured GAB File No. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 56527 -06904 O LEFEVERE, LEFLER. KENNEDY • O' BRI EN & DRAWZ Policy No. Claim No. 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 claimant Various Attn: Richard S c h i e f f e r Agency and Location Location of Claim Brooklyn Center, MN L I Type of Claim Date of Claim Policy Term —I L 1 - 30 -85 SUGGESTED RESERVES $13.000.00 ENCLOSURES 1. Detailed Estimate. 2. Claim presentation by Mark Johnson. 3. Copy of letter to David Samuelson. ACCIDENT 10 The accident occurred on January 30. 1985 when lift station No. 1 failed. PROPERTY DAMAGE I Enclosed you will find the property damage as ,listed by Mr. Mark Johnson. SETTLEMENT We have per your request mailed a letter to Mr. Samuelson, and we have reached agreement with Mr. Johnson of 2712 O'Henry Road for his damages. Total damages for Mr. Johnson were $3.375.96. We did apply some depreciation, in particular to the wedding dress. The other items were indicated to me to have been fairly new purchases. You will also note that the claimant in his original presentation did not include damages to the dwelling which we found would be applicable. We are awaiting response from Mr. Samuelson and at that time we will send our final closing papers to you. TO BE DONE 1. Reach agreement with Mr. Samuelson if possible. 2. Our next report within 45 days. - T. R. Maine Adjuster TRM /pm -U M 4LU 12778 GAR Detailed Estimate r 6 ANCH -� GAB FILE NO. DATE OFFICE TELEPHONE NO. f BUILDING CONTENTS ATION ) TELEPHONE NO. POLICY NO. } CLAIM NO' DATE OF LOSS TYPE OF LOSS ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATED REPLACEMENT COST TYPE OF BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION BUILDING AGE LESS DEPRECIATION LESS DEPRECIATION BUILDING MEASUREMENTS TOTAL FEET ACTUAL CASH VALUE ACTUAL CASH VALUE LABOR - LABOR TOTAL CHECK O HOURS RATE LABOR MATERIALS DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE TOTAL ITEM AGE ITEM COST DEPRECIATION ACTUAL CASH VALUE !�J _ L t / Ak - / I �b.i (CONTINUE ON FORM 448) TOTAL $ COST TO REPAIR OR REPLACE $ LESS- DEPRECIATION $ L CASH VALUE OF LOSS $ 1qWr COMPLETED ON ADJUSTMENT ONLY) LESS- DEDUCTIBLE OR CO- INSURANCE PENALTY $ TOTAL $ APPRAISALS ONLY - AGREED TO BY (SUBJECT TO POLICY CONDITIONS) PREPARED BY ASSIGNMENT In consideration of Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy- Five -and 96/100 ($3,375.96) Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Mark Johnson of 2712 O'Henry Road, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota herein called the claimant, hereby assigns to the City of Brooklyn Center, its successors and assigns, any and all claims, of any kind which the claimant may have against Mike Paul Electric, Inca or such other persons, firms or corporations arising out of the sewer backup occurring on or about January 30, 1985, due to a malfunction of Brooklyn Center Lift Station #1. The claimant agrees that no settlement or payment has been made to the claimant for the claim by any other person, except the City of Brooklyn Center, and that the claimant is the owner of the property above described and entitled to recover for o the loss described herein. The claimant further covenants and agrees to cooperate fully with the City in the prosecution of such claim and furnish all information and evidence deemed necessary in any proceedings for recovery of the .loss by the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I /we have hereto set my /our hand(s) this day of , 198 Mark Johnson Co- Claimant DEPARTMENT CITY OF OF V BROOKLYN FINANCE C ENTER � ME TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: January 22, 1986 SUBJECT: AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND EARLE BROWN DAYS, INC. I have attached a revised proposed agreement between the City and Earle Brown Days, Inc. which would authorize Earle Brown to provide services for the City in planning and carrying -out a program of events for the City's seventy - fifth anniversary in 1986. I have made several changes to the agreement which was originally sent to the Council two weeks ago for their review. The changes, which are underlined in the attached agreement, would somewhat strengthen the internal controls for the project. _ If the revised agreement meets with your approval, would you please forward it to the City Council for their consideration at the January 27 Council meeting? I have also attached a budget submitted by Mike Nelson, Seventy -fifth Anniversary Committee Treasurer. I believe that the budget, as presented, would fulfill the requirements of the agreement as to the first release of City funds. _Paul ~ W. ^Holmlund___ "71:e . m& si f X11 ale � ., AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND EA RLE BROWN DAYS, INC This Agreement is made this 27th day of January, 1986, between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the City, and Earle Brown Days, Inc., a Minnesota non - profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as Earle Brown; Gene Pu The parties understand and agree that the City is celebrating the 75th Anniversary of its incorporation during 1986 and that the celebration will consist of a Program of Civic Events throughout 1986. 'It is the intention of both parties that Earle Brown shall formulate and plan the Program of Events, which Program of Events will be subject to the approval of the City. The carry- ing out of the approved program of events shall be the sole responsibility of Earle Brown. Services Provided Earle Brown agrees to provide planning, scheduling, manage- ment, and the delivery of the following services to the City, together with such additional services which are necessary to carry out the General Purpose of this Agreement: a. The planning nd formulation of the Program o g g f Events constituting the 75th Anniversary celebration of the City; b. Upon approval by the City of the Program of Events, Earle Brown shall direct, manage, execute, and, at its discretion, contract with others for the execution of the program of events. L iability . The City shall not exercise control over,. shall provide no directive or advice to, and shall not interfere with Earle Brown or its employees in the Performance of the services required by this contract. Earle Brown volunteers and employees shall not be considered employees of the City and shall be under the direct control of Earle Brown. Earle Brown agrees to indemnify the City and hold the City harmless from any liability, claim, demand, or action of any kind arising out of Earle Brown's activities taken in furtherance of this contract. °Earle Brown shall carry a policy of liability insurance in an amount approved by the City and shall name the City as an additional i on s uch policy o insurance. Exclusive Licensee If any function in the program of events requires a license from the City, Earle Brown shall be the exclusive license holder and shall be responsible to control and require its employees, vendors, and contractors to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the license. Paymen The City agrees to pay to Earle Brown the sum of $15,000.00 for the performance of the services described in this contract, said amount being payable at the following times: $7,500.00 on the 28th day of January, 1986 $ 5F000.00 00. 00 on the 30th d of April, 1986 $2,500.00 on the 30th day of September, 1986 Earle Brown shall maintain records of the amounts expended on each function of the Program of Events. These records be made available to the City for examination upon request. In the event that Earle Brown fails to provide the services escr" e ereunder, discontinues its operation, or breaches the contract in any material way, Earle Brown shall refund to the City such portion of the amount paid by the City as remains unexpended. Prior to the January 28 initial payment, Earle Brown shall submit a budget of income and expense or 7he p anne nniversary events to the city. Prior to the April 30 and Septe er 30 payments, Earle Brown shall submit to the City a detailed report of monies expended or encumbered and monies received or pledged for anniversary events to those dates. Miscellaneous The parties agree that this contract is not assignable by either party and that the contract shall become effective upon approval by the Board of Directors by Earle Brown and the execution thereof by its President and Secretary, and upon approval by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center and execution thereof by the Mayor and City Manager of the City. IN WITHESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates indicated below. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Dated; By: Dean Nyquist, Mayor Dated: By: Gerald G. .Splinter, City Manager EARLE BROWN DAYS, INC. Dated: _ B Its President �- Dated By - ~- Its Secretary -� -- 75th Anniversary Committee Scenario Analysis Break Even on all events With Profit Worst Case Potential Reasonable Optimistic City Money $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Profit on Events - - 5,297 15,360 Expenses (42,400) (31,685) (31,685) (31,685) Beginning Funds Available 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 $( 7,900) $ 2,815 $ 8,112 $ 18,175 Desired Ending Reserve 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Ovarage (Shortfall) 1(17,900) 7,185) 1 888) 8 175 "Worst Case assumes no revenue except $30,000 of City Funds. "Break Even" assumes fund raising events will only cover costs "Reasonable" scenario assumes marginal profitability on most fund raising events "Optimistic scenario represents the very best that could be obtained. Brooklyn Center 75th Anniversary "Reasonable" Scenario Budget Total Jan. Feb. Mar'. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. /Nov. Project Button Sales $ 235 $( 175) $ 300 $ 810 $( 700) Birthday Party 1 $ 450 700 Fireworks (6,000) (3,000) $(3,000) Ramada inn - Final Event 3,100 3,100 Parade (6,425) (1,600) (4,825) Circus, 2,655 ( 395) 500 2,550 Carnival - ( 100) 100 Merchandise Sales 657 (2,030) 665 900 1,122 General Overhead (3,060) (1,250) ( 300) ( 300) ( 300) ( 300) ( 210) ( 200) ( 50) ( 50) ( 100) Unallocated City Appropriation 15,000 5,000 5 5 Hot Air Balloons (3,700) (3,700) Net Proceeds from Activities $ 3,612 $ 2,205 $(2,775) $(2,030) $ 265 $ 6,510 $(7,813) $ 2,350 $( 50) $ 4,950 $ - Beginning Earl Brown Funds 4,500 Ending Earl Brown Funds 8 112 Hot Air Balloon Race Budget Actual Income Allocation of City Funds $ 400 $ - Expenses Prize money 1,725 Publicity 50 Insurance 250 Security 400 Participation fee 1,275 Banners 400 Total Expense $ 4,100 $ - Net Cost $( 3,700) Fireworks Displays Budget Actual Income Allocation From City Budget $ 5,000 $ - Cost of Fireworks Displays* $11,000 $ Net Cost 6 000) * 1 @ $5,000 2 @ $3,000 General Overhead Budget Actual Stationary & Letterhead $ 500 Photocopying 150 Postage 110 Care Bear 50 Publicity 1,000 Unallocated Insurance 1,000 Miscellaneous 150 Supplies 100 - Net Cost 3 060 • Parade June 26 Budget Actual Income Allocation of City Allowance $ 7,100 $ - Expenses Judge 150 Paid Marching Units 1,000 Security 7,100 Trophies 250 Mailings 75 Sanitation 950 Food for Bands & Other 850 Prize Money for Bands 2,000 Other 150 Insurance 1,000 Total Expense $13,525 $ - Net Cost 6 425) Button Sales Budget Actual Income Prize Buttons 1,500 @ $1 $ 1,500 Lapel Pins 250 @ $2.50 625 Total Income $ 2,125 , Expenses Cost of Buttons (3,000 @ .23) $ 690 Prizes 700 Cost of Lapel Pins (500 @ $1) 500 Total Expenses $ 1 $ - Net Income 235 Circus July 31 1 Performance Budget Actual Income - Ticket Sales (1,300 @ $5 + 1,300 @ $3) $10,400 - Ad Sales 5 @ $150 750 - City Funds 500 Total Income $11,650 Expenses Reservation Fee $ 395 Tickets to Advertisers (25 child each) 450 Insurance _ Revenue Sharing 100% of lst 250 adult tickets 1,250 50% of excess adult tickets 2,625 75% of childrens tickets 2,925 Water & Electricity 100 Security 500 Permits _ Clean Up 100 Sanitation 150 Publicity 500 Total Expenses $ 8,995 Net Profit (Loss) t 2,655 , • Carnival Mem. Day Week Budget Actual Income Allocation of City Funds $ 2,000 Income 1,150 Total Income $ 3,150 Expenses Utilities $ 450 Insurance _ Clean Up 100 Security 2,000 Sanitation 500 Publicity 100 Total Expenses $ 3,150 $ - Net Cost i Birthday Par Y February 15, 1985 Budget Actual Income 300 @ $ /each $ 4,500 Expenses Meals 300 @ $7.75 /each $ 2,325 Beverages 150 Insurance Allocation _ Entertainment 75 Publicity 200 Licenses & Permits _ Decorations & Place Settings 150 Donation to MADD or SADD 300 Lunch for School Principles p (25 @ $6) 150 Total Expenses $ 3,350 $ - Net Profit 1 150 tea, Merchandise Sales Budget Actual Income Baseball Caps (250 @ $5) $ 1,250 Wind socks (125 @ $3.50) 437 Mugs (250 @ $3) 750 Balloons (250 @ $1) 250 Total Income $ 2,687 Expenses Baseball Caps (500 @ $1.30) $ 650 Wind socks (250 @ $1.79) 448 Mugs (500 @ $1.29) 645 Balloons (500 for $87) 87 Shoulder Patches 200 Total Expenses $ 2,030 Net Profit 657 a Ramada Inn - Final Event Budget Actual Income (75 couples @ $50) $ 3,750 Expenses Awards for volunteers $ 250 Entertainment 400 Total Expenses $ 650 Net Profit 3 100 DEPARTMENT //d CITY OF 0 BROOKLYN FINANCE CENTER � MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Director of Finance DATE: January 23, 1986 SUBJECT: UMBRELLA INSURANCE QUOTATION As you will recall, on May 19, 1985 when the City's umbrella insurance policy expired, the carrier chose not to renew the policy. We, at that time, pursued umbrella coverage from other carriers without success. The only carrier willing- to write the coverage at that time was the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). However, the cost of the premium and the many exclusions from coverage caused us to recommend, and the Council to decide, to go without umbrella coverage until reasonable rates and coverages were again available. I recently received, upon my request, a quotation from LCMIT for umbrella coverage. I have attached the quotation. It is my recommendation that the City Council decline the quotation. The annual premium quoted is $75,000. But even worse then the excessive premium, are the exposures that would be deleted from coverage. Those deletions would include public officials liability, pollution - absolute, child molestation, and our liquor stores. It is apparent, from this quotation and other inquiries that we have made, that the umbrella insurance market has not improved at all since we dropped coverage and that the type of coverage that we want and can afford is still not available. ------ eo --- 4�9_ kN J�� I ---- Paul W. Holmlund NSRS !North Star Risk Services, Inc. 900 First Bank Place West . Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 339 -8887 TO : tJ L- I �j DATE : pf� , ;?-n lq coin N UMBRELLA QUOTATION NAMED INSURED:' DF of-00"M 60�� LIABILITY LIMIT: $1,000,000 SELF- - INSURED RETENTION: $10, QUOTATION EXPIRES: EXCLUSIONS: Pollution- Absolute, Child Molestation FOLLOW FORM: TqA 13L G+ bPP l G4 Al OTHER ENDORSEMENTS: Municipality Endorsement, First Dollar Defense PREMIUM: ' COO REMARKS: MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: January 23, 1986 SUBJECT: ShowBiz Pizza Beer License As you are aware, all liquor and beer licenses were up for renewal at the end of the year. The paperwork for renewal was due in the police department November 1, 1985 with the license fee due by December 1, 1985. ShowBiz Pizza did not meet these deadlines and in fact nothing at all was received from them until the afternoon of December 31, 1985. Also, what was received on December 31 1985 was incomplete. ShowBiz was immediately informed that this application was incomplete and even if complete would have to be approved by the City Council and the soonest this could be done would be the first meeting in January on the 13th. ShowBiz was informed that they did not have a nonintoxicating liquor license for 1986 and they would have to cease all sale and consumption, at midnight on December 31, which they did. They also have had all beer removed from the premises until such time as a new license is issued. We did not receive the rest of the information needed to complete the application until January 14, 1986. When all information was received a background investigation was then g g completed. A copy of the investigator's resume is attached. At this time the Police Department is recommending issuance of a Nonintoxicating Liquor License for ShowBiz Pizza Place effective Tuesday, January 28, 1986. MEMORANDUM TO: Chief James Lindsay FROM: Investigator Robert Dirks DATE: January 22, 1986 SUBJECT: A Non Intoxicating Liquor License application to the City of Brooklyn Center by Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Attached please find the completed Part 2 Personal Information Applications in support of an application for On -Sale or Club Intoxicating or Non Intoxicating Liquor or Wine License for the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Number One being for Mark Edward Huerth, DOB 7/28/65, the new Manager for Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. The same application forms being also submitted by the office holders, Richard Mead Frank, DOB 1/26/48, President / Director; Alice Margaret Winters, DOB 8/30/39, Secretary /Director; and David Alexander Stevenson, DOB 3/17/51, Treasurer. Also attached is the City of Brooklyn Center Rent /Sale report and a reement certificate of insurance A Alexander g ► ce from Alexander lex der of • Texas, Inc., the producer. The insured being Brock Hotel Corporation and Show Biz Pizza Place, Inc., photostatic copy of real estate taxes paid by Show Biz Pizza Place for the location in the City of Brooklyn Center, and one photostatic copy of a letter addressed to the City of Brooklyn Center, dated December 5, 1985 and signed Lola Richert, License Administrator for Show Biz Pizza Time, indicating that there had been no political contribution made in the State of Minnesota during the year of 1985. Additionally attached is a list of the Manager to operate the Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. location in the City of Brooklyn Center, named listed of Mark Edward Huerth, and the three listed executive officers previously mentioned, along with the Board of Directors for Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Upon examination p ion of the application, Investigator Dirks learned that essentially what was taking place with Show Biz Pizza Time Inc. was a purchase back by the parent company which had originally operated as Sweeney Group operating Show Biz Pizza Places in the State of Minnesota. -Upon discussing this with Chief Lindsay, Investigator Dirks was directed to do background checks on the executive officers previously listed, as well as a thorough background investigation in reference to the Manager to operate the Brooklyn Center location, that being Mark Edward Huerth. Investigator Dirks in observing the executive officers found that they were three new people to be operating the corporation of Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. and, therefore, ran criminal history checks on all of these individuals in their states of residency, as well as MINCIS and NCIC checks and criminal history checks, and additionally any other state checks if the applicant had lived at an address other than his present address within the last five years. Memo: Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Page 2 Investigator Dirks first started by checking with the President of Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc., that being Richard Mead Frank, address of 5719 Glen Heather Drive, Dallas, Texas, DOB 1/26/48. In checking on Mr. . Frank, MINCIS wants were run, Minnesota criminal history, NCIC wants and criminal history, Texas warrants, or wants, criminal history and Texas drivers license. Also Florida warrants and wants and criminal history and Georgia warrants and wants and criminal history. In checking all of these, Investigator Dirks received no information back to indicate that Mr. Frank had a criminal history or active warrants. Investigator Dirks next checked on Alice Margaret Winters, also checking her maiden name of Gerlock, home addres 6019 Donley, Euless, Texas, DOB 8/30/39. Investigator Dirks in checking on Ms. Winters and her maiden name of Gerlock, did check with MINCIS wants, Minnesota criminal history, NCIC wants and criminal history, Texas warrants and criminal history, Texas drivers license, as well as Kansas warrants and criminal history. In checking all of these locations, Investigator Dirks was unable to come up with any kind of a criminal history or warrants in either of Ms. Winter's names. Investigator Dirks next checked David Alexander Stevenson of 6208 Berry Hill, Dallas, Texas, DOB 3/17/51. The record checks were run through MINCIS wants, Minnesota criminal history, NCIC wants and criminal history, Texas warrants and wants, criminal history and a Texas drivers license. Again, in checking on David Stevenson as is in the cases of the other executive officers, Investigator Dirks did not receive any indication of criminal history or warrants. That concluded the background investigation into the executive officers of Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Investigator Dirks next did the background investigation on the Manager of the Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. to operate in the City of Brooklyn Center, that being Mark Edward Huerth, who resides at 8 Oliver Ave. So., Minneapolis, Mn., his date of birth being 7/28/65. Investigator Dirks started this background by first running criminal history checks on Mr._Heurth. These checks including MINCIS wants; Minnesota criminal history NCIC wants and criminal history, Hennepin County warrants and criminal history, Ramsey County warrants and criminal history, Minnesota drivers license check. Investigator Dirks learned that Mr. Huerth had no criminal history or wants on any of the above, except for Hennepin County warrants, specifically Warrant No. 86201834 for Snow Emergency parking, dated 1/3/86. Investigator Dirks also learned that Mr. Heurth had a valid Minnesota drivers license with a speeding violation being the only offense listed on May 13, 1985. Investigator Dirks, after learning of the warrant, did call Mr. Huerth and advised him of the situation, at which time he informed me that it had to be some mistake as he had paid this, but that he would check into it. Investigator Dirks did advise Mr. Huerth that this should be taken ,care before the completion of my memorandum Memo: Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Page :3 0 in reference to this background which was to be in on January 22, 1986. Investigator Dirks did check with the Warrant Office on several occasions after the conversation with Mr. Huerth and did, in fact, check on 1/22/86 at 1413 hours with the Hennepin County Warrant Office, only to be informed that the warrant was still active and that Mr. Huerth had not been in to take care of the situation. At the writing of this memorandum then Mr. Huerth has not resolved the warrant with Hennepin County and still has an active warrant for Snow Emergency parking. Investigator Dirks next in doing the background investigation, checked with neighbors and references of Mr. Huerth. It should be noted that Mr. Huerth has moved several times in the last ten years and has been in a renter's status in those moves, where neighbors would not be very' familiar with him. Investigator Dirks did then check with neighbors that would have known him when he still resided at home with his parents and spoke with one Dorothy Ingelman, address 1779 Overlook Lane, Mendota Heights, Mn., phone 452 - 2894. Ms. Ingelman knew Mr. Huerth when he resided at 1507 Christenson Ave. in West St. Paul, which is very near by the Mendota Heights address of Ingelman. Investigator Dirks in talking with Ms. Ingelman learned that she had known Mr. Huerth for approximately ten to twelve years and that'Mr. Huerth as a child had been a friend of her son. Ms. Ingelman could only describe Mr. Huerth as a very bright young man and a very good' student while he attended school in their area. In fact, she indicated that he was brighter than her own son who she is very proud of and is continuing his education at the University of Minnesota. Ms. Ingelman stated that she was not real certain of what work habits he would have since she has not been close to him in the last few years, but did know that he went on to Vocational School after graduating from High School. Ms. Ingelman stated that Mr. Huerth, as she knows him, was a very level, headed young man and very achiever oriented and stated that the last time she had seen him they had had a very nice and stimulating talk over some political issue. Ms. Ingelman stated that she did not know Mr. Huerth to have any problems with chemical use or abuse and stated that only sociably did he drink to the best of her knowledge. Ms. Ingelman stated that she knew the family fairly well as they had socialized, that meaning the parents, when they lived in the same neighborhood and that she knew Mr. Huerth's father to have been retired from Minnesota Mining at a fairly young age. She stated that she knew they had a religious background as Mrs. Huerth and herself had discussed spiritual things at different times. Mrs. Ingelman stated that the only thing she had heard that she did not know if it had influence or not in our background about Mr. Huerth is that he had recently been living with a young women, sharing an apartment, but she did not know the particulars of that particular arrangement. When asking Ms. Ingelman about the background of Mr. Memo: Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Page 4 Huerth, as far as her feeling in regards to obeying, procedures, city ordinances and laws, she felt that Mr. Huerth would most definitely comply with any restrictions set down and would make employees under him abide as well. Ms. Ingelmen did state that she felt that Mr. Huerth would very adequately be able to handle the job for which he had been assigned by this corporation and could see no real problem for the Police Department with him running this particular operation. Investigator Dirks next spoke with one Ms. Kathleen Love, who is a sixty year old female, who resides at 1360 Terrace Drive, Roseville, Mn. 55113, Apt. #201, phone 631- 1910. Ms. Love informed Investigator Dirks that she had lived in the apartment complex where Mark .Huerth and his parents had resided in Oakdale and had known Mark since he was approximately twelve years old. Ms. Love stated that her daughter, whose name had been listed with Investigator Dirks as a character reference, Sandra Lansing, also had known him this same period of time. Ms. Love informed me that her daughter, Ms. Lansing, had managed the particular apartment complex at the time that they first met Mark and that he did odd jobs for them in the apartment complex at difference times. Ms. Love stated that she had nothing but total respect for Mr. Huerth and that he, along with his parents, were extremely pleasant and nice people. Ms. Love stated that when they had lived together in the Oakdale /Maplewood area that they had gotten to be very close and that Mark was one of the nicest young men she had ever met. She indicated that Mark was a very friendly, smiley person and that he was extremely easy to get along with, but that he also was a very mature young man for his age and able to handle great responsibility. Ms. Love stated that in her opinion a corporation such as Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. would be lucky to have him as a Manager as she felt that he would be ` able to do well and make the business succeed as well as running a very taut ship in regards to following policies and procedures. Investigator Dirks in expressing the Police Department's normal concerns with a Manager as far as following City Ordinances and State Statutes on distribution of liquor was informed by Ms. Love that she felt Mark would very gladly adhere to any laws and would make sure that his employees did so as well. Asked if there was any negative point she could think of-in regards to Mark Huerth, Ms. Love stated that she could not think of one. In talking with Sandra Lansing, the daughter of Kathleen Love, who resides at that same address, Investigator Dirks was advised of the same sort of positive comments as had previously been described by Ms. Love. Investigator Dirks then in checking the next phase of the background, did contact past employers or supervisors for Mr. Huerth as he was employed by Show Biz Pizza Places, Inc. under the Sweeney Group, Inc. Investigator Dirks first spoke with one John J. Rothstien, a 36 year h Memo: Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Page 5 old male who lives at 3636 Scheuneman Road, Gem Lake, Mn., phone 429- 5889, work phone 770 -1911. Investigator Dirks in talking with Mr. Rothstien was imediately informed that he was presently a Manager of Chucky Cheese, which is owned by the parent company of Ramada Inn. Mr. Rothstien stated that he had previously worked with Mark Huerth at the Maplewood location for Show Biz Pizza Places, Inca under the Sweeney Group and that he had been Manager at that time. Mr. Rothstien stated that he had worked with Mark there for two years and that Mark was an exemplary employee who had worked his way up through the ranks, eventually achieving his present position of Manager at the Brooklyn Center store which Mr. Rothstien stated is quite impressive due to Mr. Huerth's young age, Mr. Rothstien stated that Mr. Huerth was an extremely bright young man and adapted to the business quickly, that he was a very hard worker and would put in any number of hours to achieve success for the employers he was under. Mr. Rothstien stated that he had no problems whatsoever with Mark and that he was an excellent employee in regards to attendance and that during the course of his time of running shifts while under his supervision, they had no problems with shortages from the cash registers. Mr. Rothstien stated that he ;trusted him fully and found it very easy to leave him in control as his Assistant Manager when he left the business without have to worry that things would not be run right. Mr. Rothstien stated again that the faith that the corporation has in him to make him Manager should demonstrate the kind of young man that he is. Investigator Dirks in asking Mr. Rothstiens if they had any problems with violations of State Statutes or Ordinances when running the store in Maplewood, and advising him that I would be checking further, he informed me that they had not and that in checking identification when liquor was served, Mr. Huerth was very issistant as was Mr. Rothstien's policy, that all young people be checked for identification so that no beer would be served to minors. -Mr. Rothstien stated that Mark had learned this as a matter of corporate policy and was a company man and would follow any policy procedure or law governing the operation of the business. To quote Mr. Rothstien, Investigator Dirks was advised that Mr. Huerth would run "a tight ship ", and that we would have no problems with that operation. After speaking with this past Supervisor, Investigator Dirks then contacted another co- worker, this being Paul V. Cole, of 2725 No. Magnolia Lane, Plymouth, Mn., phone 559 -7572. Investigator Dirks in speaking with Mr. Cole learned that he has known Mr. Huerth for approximately two and a half years and has known him from the Bloomington store as an Assistant Manager, as well as him being Assistant Manager at the Brooklyn Center store before being made General Manager. Mr. Cole presently works with Mr. Huerth at the Brooklyn Center location as he indicated that his job is that of a Technician there in reference to the equipment. Mr. Cole stated that Memo: Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. Page 6 he did not socialize with Mr. Huerth, but as a co- worker with him under Mr. Huerth's direction, he has found him to be a very good leader, very positive with the employees to keep them satisfied and keep things` running smoothly and that he is very customer oriented to sell their product with the customer in mind. Mr. Cole stated that Mr. Huerth is particulary concerned in regards to following company policy and procedures and that he also knows that during staff meeting, including bar tenders and cashiers, Mr. Huerth is very stringent upon explaining the State Statutes in regards to the dispensing of the beer and following those laws, as well as the company procedures in regards to the operation of the business. Mr. Cole stated that there have been times when the employees would like to sit in the parking lot after hours at some of the businesses they have worked together, and Mr. Huerth is very insistent that they not hang around the business after hours, thereby causing possible problems. Mr. Cole did indicate that he felt that Mr. Huerth was a very good Manager as he operates presently at the location in Brooklyn Center and that he is capable of managing this store and it's people along the lines as proscribed by their corporation and any City Ordinances that Brooklyn Center would have. Investigator Dirks in questioning Mr. Cole in regards to any knowledge of Mr. Huerth outside the job relationship, indicated that he does not socialize with him and that he does not know anything really about his life outside of work. Investigator Dirks then, did contact in this background investigation, people of personal reference, past work relationships, as well as neighbors, in reference to Mr. Mark Huerth. Investigator Dirks in conclusion, in reference to Mr. Huerth's background, could only find one negative factor, that being the warrant that was found when doing the wants and warrant checks from Hennepin County, which Mr. Huerth was then made aware of and as of the writing of this memorandum he has not taken care of. The other individuals who Investigator Dirks talked to though indicated from their comments that Mr. Huerth was -a responsible person and would be able to handle the business. Unfortunately this one item which he had been informed about and had taken care of, makes a person speculate some in regards to his responsibility. Investigator Dirks, however, did not find any negative comments from the individuals he checked with and received positive response in reference to him running this particular location of Show Biz Pizza Time, Inc. SAS Licenses to be approved by the City Council on January 27, 1986 / CATERING FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Green Mill Restaurant 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. SanitarianL CIGARETTE LICENSE Delaney Vending 1999 Palace Ave. Green Mill 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Snyder Brothers Drug Brookdale Cente City Clerk ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Boy Scout Troop #299 8100 Georgia Court Sanitarian _ MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Swenson Heating 6700 West Broadway Buildi hg Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Bill's Vending Service 7317 West Broadway Brooklyn Center Getty 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Bro- Midwest Vending 8850 Wentworth Ave. S. Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. * Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. Dale Tile Co. 4825 France Ave. N. D.L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Auto 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Evergreen Park Elementary 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Iten Leasing 4301 68th Ave. N. Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake St. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. N.S.P. 4501 68th Ave. N. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Red Owl Stores /Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N. Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. Thrifty Scot 6445 James Circle Bill West Union 76 2000 57th Ave. N. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Drive First Western Bank 6200 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Group Health 6845 Lee Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center Woodside Enterprises 11889 65th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Sanitarian G PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Jimmy Jingle 1304 E. Lake Str. Palmer Lake Plaza 6860 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. 'win City Vending 1065 E. Highway 36 g Y Earle Brown Farm Ind. 6100 Summit Dr. Sears Brookdale Center . �'�J1Ct rl Sanitarian. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE IFInitial: Mr. & Mrs. Dabrowski 5001 Ewing Ave. N. Michael & Jane Danielson 4216 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Bertil E. Anderson 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. #336 Director of Planning and Inspection SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Fanny Farmer Candies Brookdale Center Ideal Drug Store 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. M & S Drug Emporium 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. � �•�� ��� Norden Inc. Brookdale Center _ Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: X, D. K. Weeks, City Clerk