HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 12-03 CCP Regular Session CITY C0 C11, AG11 A
CITY OF LROCKLYN CLt4!TLR
DECENLER 3, 198
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 October 15, 1984 Regular Session
- November 5, 1984 - Regular Session
7. Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation and Recognition to Mary Simmons
* 8. Appointment of Don Peterson, member of the Park & Recreation Commission, Ed
Eide representing CEAP, and Jim Norwick representing District 286 Community
Education,to the Earle Brown Farm Development Advisory Committee
9. Resolutions:
*a. Establishing Water Assessment Rates Effective January 1, 1985
-This resolution adjusts the water hookup rates, based on the Consumer
Price Index, as per existing policy.
*.b. Amending Municipal State Aid Street Construction Policy to Establish
Maximum Assessment Rates for Residential Properties on 1985 Projects
-This resolution adjusts the maximum rates for curb and gutter and street
construction based on the Construction Cost Index.
*c. Accepting Quotations and Authorizing Purchase of Two Snow Box Inserts
-This item is authorized for the Public Works. Department by the 1985 Budget.
*d. Approving Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for One 14'
Aluminum Step Van
-This item is authorized for the Fire Department in the 1985 Budget.
e. Granting Final Approval of Refunding of Brookdale Office Park Partnership
Project (Brookdale Office Crossings)
10. Public Hearing on a Proposal to Undertake and Finance a Single Family Housing
Program Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C (7:30 p.m.)
11. Discussion Items:
a. Staff Report on Comparable Worth
*12. Licenses
13. 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
OCTOBER 15, 1984
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Erooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes. Also
present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp,
r Director Inspection Ron Warren
& Ins e
Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Di.ecto. of Planning p ,
City Attorney Richard Schieffer, City Assessor Peter Koole, and Administrative
Assistant Tom Eublitz.
Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmember Theis would be absent from this evening's
meeting.
INVOCATIOtd
The invocation was offered by Pastor Dick Rabine of Brookdale Covenant Church.
OPEN FORUM
Nyquist r an requests to use the D
r ist n h Council had not received Mao r, u noted the Cou h p
Y Yq Y en Forum q
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 Council members requested any items removed from the
Consent Agenda. There were none.
PERFORMANCE FOND RELEASE NANKIN EXPRESS, 5532 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve the performance guarantee release for the Nankin Express, 5532 Brooklyn,
Boulevard (Planning Commission Application No. 84011) in the amount of $6,000.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -158
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -F (EVERGREEN PARK/AREA
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -07, PHASE I)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted. in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
10 -15 -84 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -159
iember.Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF MARY SIMMONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve the following list of licenses;
CIGARETTE LICENSE
A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S.
Ault, Inca 1600 Freeway Blvd
COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE
Pet Centers, Inc. Brookdale- Center
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Jaycee Women 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Kumar Mechanical, Inc.' 877 Southwest 3rd_Str.-
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
~A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S.
Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd.
Coca Cola 1189 Eagan Ind Rd.
Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
A & J Enterprises 6843 Washington Ave. S.
Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Arthur & LaVonne Cahill 4715 France Ave. N.
Renewal;
Donald M. & Cora M. Noonan 3800 France Pl.
Wilbert & Delores Hanson 7210 Perry Ct. E.
Delbert P. Bruce 4741 Twin Lk. Ave.
Voting in favor Mayor Nyquist, Councilmember Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. ;Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
PRESENTATION OF' RESOLUTION OF APP AND R TO PHYLLIS PLUMMER
Mayor Nyquist noted that Phyllis Plummer was not able to be present this evening to
accept the Council resolution and the item would be deferred to another meeting.
10 -15 -84 -2-
R� SG LUTIGt S (CO NTI11UED)
ZFTC ty P anager introduced a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1984
J (Central Park Plaza Improvement Project 1984 -10) . He noted that the bid of Shafer
Contracting Co., Inc. in the amount of $427,377.35 is recommended for acceptance.
Councilmember Hawes noted an error in the resolution and pointed out that the figure
of $229,335-89 on the second page of the resolution should actually be $29,335-89
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -160
Member Lill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption as
corrected:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1984 -J (CENTRAL PARK PLAZA
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -10)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
PROPOSED PURCHASE OF OLD 7- ELEVEN STORE
e City Manager referred Council members to the memorandum from the City Assessor
and noted that the purchase of the old 7 - Eleven Store at 69th and Humboldt is
proposed for relocation of the City's Municipal Liquor Store No. 1.
Mayor Nyquist inquired why the purchase agreement stipulates that the buyer pay for
the title insurance. The City Attorney commented that this is unusual but the Title
Insurance Company has a plan where each buyer and seller pay a portion of the title
insurance. He commented that he looked at some projects with similar costs and the
cost to the buyer to pay attorney fees to examine the abstract would be more
expensive than paying a portion of the title insurance. Mayor Nyquist stated he was
concerned with item c in the proposed purchase agreement, in that, if the title is
not marketable then the City could have a problem. The City Attorney stated that
the document was reviewed by the City attorney's office before review by the seller
so any change the City makes should not harm the agreement. Mayor Nyquist then
commented regarding the language in item 5b of the purchase agreement which
describes a "special warranty deed ". The Mayor inquired what the term special
implied. The City Attorney stated he is not certain of why it is described as a
special warranty deed but ownership here would not require a special warranty deed.
He added that the word special could be stricken from the agreement unless the seller
offers a reason for it, at the time of closing.
Councilmember Lhotka requested a clarification of the last paragraph in section 8 of
the purchase agreement regarding - payment of special assessments. The City`
Attorney explained that it is typical for the seller to pay the present year's
special assessments and for the buyer to pay all subsequent years of special
asessments. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired as to the status of the current
lease for liquor store No. 1. The Director of Finance explained that the lease can
be renewed on November 30 of this year with a 35% increase. Councilmember Lhotka
then expressed a concern over the removal of the gas tanks at the - Eleven Store,
10 -15 -84 -3-
resurfacing of the parking lot, remodeling of the store, and its removal from the tax
rolls. The Director of Finance referred Councilmember Lhotka to a report presented
at the last Council meeting which reviewed all these items.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Purchase Agreement with
Southland Corporation for the Purchase of the old 7- Eleven Store located at 69th and
Humboldt Avenues, subject to receipt of estimated fee charges. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott and Hawes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from the vote.
OFFICE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING 504 REGULATIONS
The City Manager explained that this discussion item refers to handicapped'
accessibility requirements under the Federal Revenue Sharing Program and includes
adoption of an internal grievance procedure for any complaints alleging violations
of any action prohibited by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973•
The City Manager noted that the City has a 504 plan which was formerly adopted in
1982. He added that the existing plan meets the majority of requirements for the
Office of Revenue Sharing 504 Regulations.
The City Manager pointed out that the City's current 504 plan stresses physical
accessibility and structural modifications to buildings. He added that the
Federal Revenue Sharing Regulations stress program accessibility which means that
all programs and, activities of the City must be accessible to the handicapped when
any program or activity is viewed in its entirety. He added that in the City's case
it would include recreational programs, public meetings, senior citizens'
programs, employment programs, among others. He noted that Administrative
Assistant Publitz is continuing to work with the consultant, who prepared the City's
initial program, to develop an addendum to the existing 504 Plan which would address
program accessibility requirements. He added that the action recommended this
evening is the adoption of a formal Section 504 Grievance Procedure.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve the Section 504 Grievance Procedure as recommended and prepared by the City
staff. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING LEGISLATIVE REVIEW OF PERA
The City Manager reviewed correspondence from Mr. Stan Peskar,- General Counsel for
the League of Minnesota Cities which address the issue of the appointment of Mr. John`
Allers as interim director of PERA. He pointed out Mr. PeskarIs memorandum stated
that Cities and City employees should be concerned about the lack of an open and
above board 'appointment , process for the interim director of PERA, and that the
executive directorship of PERA has been turned over to an individual without even a
minimal investigation into his qualifications to meet the requirements under PERA
policies. Additionally, Mr. Peskar recommended passage of a resolution on ;the
Public Employees Retirement System which would request the Legislature to conduct
an investigation into the PERA board election practices and also into the
administration of PERA.
RESOLUTION 84 -161
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
10 -15 -84 -4-
RLSOLUTION OI THE PULLIC EVPLCYLES RETIRE! SYSTEM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
he following voted i n favor thereof:
Lill Hawes, and upon vote being taken the t g
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:28 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EARLE BROWN FARM APARTMENTS MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING BOND
The City Manager stated that the applicant has requested a continuance of the public
hearing to the November 5, 1984 City Council meeting.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the Earle
Brown Farm Apartments Multi - family Housing Bond and acknowledged the applicant's
request for a continuance of the public hearing.
There was a motion b Councilmember Hawes and seconded b Councilmember Lhotka to
Y Y
continue the public hearing on the Earle Brown Farm eon 1 ue e pu 1 g Apartments Multi - family Housing P
r r: May
.. -..
Voting in favo M o,
Bond to the City Council meeting of Novembe 5, 1984. Vo _g Y
r Scott, and Hawes. Votin .a
Nyquist, Councilmembe s Lhotka
NYqu � , ainst: none. The Voting .against:
motion passed.
PLANNING COM.M'_ISSION ITEMS
PLANNI14 COI:N.ISSION APPLICATION NO. 84032 SUBMITTED BY L. CRAMER COMPANY FOR
EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER APPLICATION N0. 83037 FOR
AN OFFICE CONDOMINIUN PROJECT ON R5 ZCNED LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD AND 1-94
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the applicant was not present yet
and requested this item deferred until later in the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 84033 SUBM ITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES FOR SITE
AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 75,109 SQ. FT.
OFFICE- INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AT 67b5 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84034 SUBMITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES FOR
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR 52 OFF -SITE ACCESSORY PARKING STALLS ON THE CENTRAL
PARKING LOT SERVING THE INDUSTRIAL AREA NORTH OF FREEWAY BOULEVARD AND WEST OF
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY FOR USE BY THE PROPOSED SPEC. 10 OFFICE - INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
T he o P I
Director of Planning Inspection resented and reviewed for Council members
D g & P P
pages one through three of the October 4, 1984 Planning Commission meeting minutes
and also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Application Nos.
84033 and 84034. He then reviewed the location of the subject parcel and proceeded
to review a transparency of the site and building plan submitted with Application
No. 84033 The Director of Planning & Inspection also reviewed for Council members
the landscaping plan proposed with the project.
The Director of Planning & Inspection then reviewed the special use permit request
under Application No. 84034 and noted that it was for 52 off -site accessory parking
stalls. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained the Planning Commission
recommended approval of Application No. 84033, subject to 14 conditions which he
10 -15 -84 -5-
reviewed for Council members. He also explained the Planning Commission
recommended approval of Application No. 84034, subject to one condition which he
reviewed for Council members
Mayor Nyquist inquired as to the status of the proposed Ramada Hotel Project. The
Director of Planning & Inspection explained that it is his understanding that the
applicant plans to seek building permits in November of this year for that project.
He added that the applicant has also requested an extension of the special use permit
for the Ramada Hotel Project. Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern that by allowing
certain parking configurations in the surrounding area it may create a problem for
the eventual construction of the proposed Ramada Hotel, and he noted that he
believed the City should maintain as much flexibility as possible in that area with
regard to parking. The City Aanager agreed with the Mayor's comments regarding the
flexibility of the area, and noted that the staff recommendations are that no
additional approvals be granted until the Ramada Project is finalized.
Councilmember Scott stated that she agrees with the City Manager for future
approvals, such as a request for a possible Spec. 12 building.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
Nos. 84033 and 84034. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at
the public hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close
the public hearing.
There was a_motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Application Nos. 84033 and 84034. _Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none.
The motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Application No. 84033, 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 hF'PA 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.
10 -15 -84 -6-
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. L612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas, except in the areas indicated on the site plan
where bituminous curbing may be used pending future development.
The financial guarantee shall be held until permanent B612 curb
and gutter is installed.
9. Plan approval acknowledges off -site accessory parking of up to 52
stalls from the central parking lot as provided for under
Application No. 84034.
10 The applicant shall provide a landscape plan for additional
coniferous plantings along the Shingle Creek Parkway and
decorative trees along the greenstrip south of Spec. 11 This
plan shall be subject to approval by the City Council and shall
become a part of the development plans to be completed prior to
release of the financial guarantee required by Condition No. 3.
11. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
12. Special use permit approval acknowledges up to 50% office
occupancy in the ,Spec. 10 building. Any office occupancy over
50% of the gross floor area is subject to amended approval of this
application and Application No. 84034.
13. As -built utility surveys for the development shall be submitted
to the Engineering Department prior to release of the financial
guarantee.
14. A cash escrow, in an amount to be determined by the City Manager,
shall be submitted to cover the cost of street cleaning
associated with the placement or removal of fill on the site.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting
against: none. The motion passed. -`
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve Application No. 84034, subject to the following conditions: -
1. Fifty -two (52) parking stalls to be constructed on Tract C,
R.L.S. 1564 shall be legally encumbered to the sole use of Tract B
of R.L.S. 1564. Said encumbrance to be subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney.
Voting in favor rayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
PLANNI CO NNISSION APPLICATION NO. 8 4032 SUBMITTED BY L. CRAME COMPANY FOR
EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APP G RANTED UND APPLICATION NO. 8 3037 FOR
AN OFFICE CUEOMINIUM PROJ ECT ON R5 ZONLD LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF' BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD AND I -9
10 -15 -84 -7-
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented pages three through four of the
October 4, 1984 Planning Commission meeting minutes and also the Planning
Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 84032. The Director of
Planning & Inspection explained that the applicant is requesting extension of the
special use permit for an office condominium project granted approximately one year
ago. He proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel and explained that
na changes are proposed to the original site and building plan. He then explained
that, at the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, the owner of the
property adjacent to the access point for the project requested screening of the
area. He added that the applicant has agreed to the requested screening from the
street area
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the 14 conditions of approval passed
by the City Council at their original approval of the special use permit and also
noted that the Planning Commission recommended an additional condition regarding
soil corrections which he reviewed for Council members. He also noted that the
staff has recommended a 16th condition regarding the screening of the street area at
the access point into the ro'ect.
p J
The Director of Planning &Inspection explained that a hearing is required on the
application and that property owners in the area have been sent notices regarding
this evening's public hearing.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 84032. Mayor Nyquist inquired of the applicant whether he had any problem with
the 16th condition recommended by staff. The applicant replied that he had no
problem with the condition regarding the screening to the street area.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Holmlund who expressed a concern that a security
fence be built to fence the pond on the site. He added that he also assumes that some
landscaping will also go in, in addition to the security fence. The applicant
replied that he has no problem working out an agreement for a security fence and
screening.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Jim Busse, 6506 Indiana Avenue North, who expressed a
concern over the drainage around the berm areas. The City Manager noted that the
engineering department has complete review authority of any drainage plans
submitted with the project.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one else 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 Application No 84032. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve Application No. 84032, subject to the 'following conditions:
1. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
10 -15 -84 -8
2. Opaque fencing shall be installed along property lines abutting
neighboring residences where none presently exists. Where
fences do exist, a dense row of shrubbery shall be planted and
maintained for screening purposes.
3. The median in Brooklyn Boulevard shall be extended 100' to
prevent left hand turns into and out of the proposed complex.
Said median extension shall be the - responsibility of the
applicant under permit from XN /DOT. The median extension shall
be approved by MN /DOT prior to the issuance of building permits
and construction of the median shall be in conjunction with the
construction of the office complex.
4. Medical occupancy of the office complex shall be limited by the
parking available on the site or shown on a proof -of- parking plan
to be submitted by the applicant.
5. The applicant acknowledges that no access to this site from
Indiana /66th Avenue North (to the west of the site) shall be
granted now or in the future.
6. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
7. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits.
r me e
r financial a
A site performance agreement and supporting in
e a reeme a u t
$ p g PP g 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, including median construction on
Brooklyn Boulevard.
9. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
10. The buildings are 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.
11. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
12. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
13. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
14. A deceleration lane shall be installed in accordance with MN /DOT
10 -15 -84 -9-
recommendations and the sidewalk along the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard
shall be relocated onto the applicant'.s property with the granting of an
easement for sidewalk purposes.
15. Soil correction and introduction or removal of fill on the site shall be
subject to the issuance of a grading authorization by the ,Director of
Public Works and the Director of Tannin * and Inspection. A cash escrow,
P I
g ns
P ,
in an amount to be determined by Y Manager, the Cite shall be submitted to
defray the cost of street cleaning associated with the site preparation.
16. A screening and security fencing plan consistent with the City Council's
approval shall be submitted and verified prior to the issuance of building
permits.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist-, Councilmembers Lhotka Scott, and Hawes. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, and Hawes Voting against: none. The motion passed The Brooklyn
Center City Council adjourned at 8:32 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
10 -15 -84 10-
e r
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDI14GS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
NOVEMBER 5, 1984
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center" City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy
Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron
Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistants Brad
Hoffman and Tom Bublitz.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Councilmember Bill Hawes.
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 Council members requested any items removed from the
Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested item 9d removed, Councilmember
Lhotka requested item 9e removed, and Councilmember Theis requested item 9b removed
from*the Consent Agenda.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -162
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
FURNISHING AND DELIVERING FOUR (4) COMPACT POLICE PATROL SEDANS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis ;' and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -163
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -G (CENTRAL PARK TENNIS
COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.` 1983 -12, PHASE II)
11 -5 -84 -1-
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -164
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1984 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
.duly passed and adopted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 1, 1984
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of October 1, 1984 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from voting
as he was not present at the October 1, 1984 meeting
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL BROOKLYN MOBIL
The Director of Public Works reviewed his memorandum regarding the final plat for
complies Brooklyn Mobil and stated that the p p lat lies with the conditions set forth in the
preliminary plat. approval. He explained the staff submitted the plat to Hennepin
County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for their review and comment
as required by statute. He explained the Minnesota Department of Transportation
deferred comment to Hennepin County since Brooklyn Boulevard is a county road. He
then reviewed for Council members the letter received from Hennepin County with
recommendations _regarding the final plat approval.. He discussed the
recommendations received from Hennepin County and commented that the additional
right -of -way recommended by Hennepin County would be unduly restrictive for the
property owner. He concluded his remarks by recommending that the final plat be
approved as submitted.
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve the final plat for Brooklyn Mobil (Planning Commission Application No.
84021).
RESOLUTI (CONTINUED)
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Approving Specifications and Authorizing
Advertisement for Bids for a Copying Machine. In response to a question from
Councilmember Theis, Administrative Assistant Hoffman noted that the IBM 60, Xerox
and Kodak are the types of machines which will satisfy the 8200 K 150E Y specifications
p
Yp
set by the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -165
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
FURNISHING AND DELIVERING ONE (1) COPIER /DUPLICATOR
11 -5 -84 -2- .
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -166
Member Sill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR LYNDALE AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN 53RD
AVENUE NORTH AND 57TH AVENUE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing Employment of Maintenance
Worker Within the Public Utility Division.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the position was a newly created position.
The Director of Public Works explained that an opening exists in the Street and Park
Department but one employee from the Street and Park Department has been on loan to
the Public Utilities Division, and he now prefers to return to work in the Street and
Park Division so an opening exists in the Public Utilities Division.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -167
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT OF MAINTENANCE WORKER WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
DIVISION
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
Mayor Nyquist submitted the name of Mr. Wallace Bernards, 5540 Bryant Avenue North,
for appointment to the City's Planning Commission.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
appoint Mr. Wallace Bernards, 5540 Bryant Avenue North, to the City's-Planning
Commission to complete the term of Mary Simmons which expires on December 31, 1984.
RESOLUTION REGARDING PUBLIC HEARING ON SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE BOND PROGRAM
Administrative Assistant Hoffman explained that the handout resolution this
evening would set a public hearing to make mortgage money available for first time
home buyers in Brooklyn Center. He noted that the program would be identical to the
last Single Family Mortgage Bond Revenue Program conducted in the City. He added
that 10% of the funds would be set aside for non first time home buyers.
11 -5 -84 -3-
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -168
Member Gene'Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON 1985 SINGLE FAMILY REVENUE BOND PROGRAM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof;
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION FOR MS. GAIL PLEWACKI
Mayor Nyquist noted that one of Brooklyn Center's residents is receiving an award
for her outstanding work as a police officer for the City of Minneapolis. Mayor
Nyquist stated he believed it would be appropriate for the City of Brooklyn Center to
present a resolution and plaque to her recognizing her outstanding achievements.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -169
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF GAIL J PLEWACKI
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene "Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EARLE 'BROWN FARM APARTMENT MULTI- FAMILY
HOUSING BOND
The City Manager noted that the public hearing was open at the October 24, 1984 City
Council meeting and was continued to this evening's meeting at the request of the
applicant.
Continuing with the public hearing, Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. John Lemely,
representing ntin Miller & Schroeder Investments. Mr. Lemely stated he has been asked
by the owners of the apartments to represent them in the redevelopment of the Earle
Brown Farm Apartments. He explained the bonds will be privately placed with a 20
year term,
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Gary Holmes, one of the owners, who explained that he
response
to a
u
question
nts. In
rtme q
` existing a
proposes. to add 24 to 3b units to the g a p
from C
ouncilmember Lhotk a Mr. Holmes explained that the apartments have a
mes e p p
x a 5
$3,000,000 purchase price and that the renovation will be approximately $ , 400
. , 00
He added the cost of the additional 36 units will be $1,100,000 approximately.
Mayor'Nyquist inquired whether the owners will secure 100% financing Mr. Holmes
nou h to cover
' the resolution is large e g
replied that generally -the amount stated in g
the costs and that the lender will scale down the cost accordingly, if necessary.
He explained the owners will contribute 25 -30% of the cost.
Mayor Nyquist inquired 'if there was anyone else -who wished to speak at the public'
_Y Yq_
11 -5 -84 _q_
hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing on the Earle Brown Farm Apartments Multi - family Housing
Bond. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and
Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
j Councilmember Hawes inquired whether the sprinkler situation should be addressed at
this point. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that he believes bids
are being taken to correct the problems with the sprinkling system at Shingle Creek
Towers. He added the staff is recommending that the correction of the sprinkler
system be added as a condition, if the project is approved.
Councilmember Lhotka indicated that he was uncomfortable with the process in that he
did not have an opportunity to go through the information presented on the Multi -
family Housing Bond Program. He added that he is not prepared to vote this evening
and he would like to see the item held over for another meeting, if possible.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dan Nelson of Holmes and Graven, who explained that the
IRS code requires notice be published with the dollar amounts expressed in an amount
"not greater than". He added that the costs are always inflated to cover all costs
and contingencies and do not reflect hard construction costs. He added that it is
not known yet what financing package maybe required. He then explained that 90 of
the proceeds of the bonds must be put into "bricks and mortar" so owners are
prohibited from receiving more bonds than are necessary.
Councilmember Theis questioned what advantage the City may have in approving such a
project. Mr. Nelson replied that the advantage is providing upgraded housing to
persons living there, especially with regard to energy conservation, and also a
certain percentage of the units must be made available for low and moderate income
people. Also, he pointed out, the project must be maintained as a rental property
for at least ten years.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether there were any problems with the proposal as
submitted. Administrative Assistant'Hoffman noted that Mr. Dave Kennedy of the
City Attorney's office has reviewed the documents and has no problem with the
project. He added that the project is not unique to Brooklyn Center and many other
cities have these types of projects. Councilmember Hawes then asked whether the
Earle Brown Farm Apartments are in need of repair. Administrative 1 nistrative Assis
tant
Hoffman stated that, in his estimation, the Earle Brown Farm Apartments is one of the
better maintained apartment complexes in Brooklyn Center. The City Manager
commented that, if the Council is concerned with regard to what renovation is
required, the applicant can address what specific renovation items are
contemplated.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Gary Holmes who stated that he believes the Shingle
Creek Towers building really has nothing to do with this project since it is not
under the same ownership. He added that Cy Sheehy isa- 2.112% general partner in the
project. He then reviewed the planned renovation items which he noted would total
approximately $365,000. They included exterior repair and painting, air
conditioning and furnace repair, black top, soffit, entry door, roof, insulation,
window, pool, hallway, carpet, unit repairs, lighting, and energy conservation.
11 -5 -84 -5-
Councilmember Theis stated that he has a problem with regard to seeing the benefit to
the City, and also pointed out that the $450,000 in renovation stated earlier does
not seem to match with the $365,000 just stated by Mr. Holmes., Mr. Holmes replied
that cosmetically the Earle Brown Farm Apartments look good but the structure is 12
years old and is in need of repair. He added that he has done this type of project in
other cities and that one of the advantages is that the project may encourage
neighboring apartment_; complexes to do similar renovations.
Councilmember_ Theis requested a clarification of the ownership of the Shingle Creek
Towers building. Administrative Assistant Hoffmman replied that Mr. Cy Sheehy has
an interest in the Shingle Creek Towers, and that the problem with the Shingle Creek
Towers building is that the pump put into the building for the sprinkler system was
not of sufficient size to meet code requirements. He noted that the owner is now
obtaining quotes for a replacement pump,
Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern over assurances that the renovation and new
construction would actually occur, if the project was approved by the Council.
Administrative Assistant Hoffman replied that the law requires 15% of the funds must
go into renovation. Mr. Dan Nelson of Holmes and Graven added that if the Council
wishes to amend the resolution they can condition to the final approval for such
assurances.
Councilmember Scott stated that she is concerned that the dollar amounts stated for
renovation appear to be changing. Mr. Holmes replied that the $4,000,000 expressed
in the resolution will likely not be the mortgage amount but he added that he is done
enough of these projects to know that there are cost overruns and, therefore., he must
ask for sufficient bonding. He added that it is hard to get a firm cost until the
project is actually begun. Councilmember Theis expressed a concern that the list
of renovations indicated by Mr. Holmes is not as necessary in light of the intent of
the Multi- family Housing Bond Program. Mr. Holmes replied that over the past three
years the FHA has taken a less active part with regard to housing programs and that
the Reagan Administration has lifted some FHA restrictions. However, it is
required that 20% of the units be available to low and moderate income 'persons and
that 15% of the dollar amount of the project be put into renovation. He noted that
the program provides a boost to existing projects and can stimulate new
construction. He explained a lot of repairs need to be done and that the project was
built in the early 70's and is in now need of some renovation.
Councilmember Lhotka stated that he does not feel knowledgeable enough to make a
decision tonight regarding this type of program and bond. He stated he believes the
Council should actually visit the project before any decision is made. Mayor
Nyquist added that the Council` does not really have a policy to deal with this type of
program. He suggested having this item`on as 'a discussion item at the next Council
meeting,
Mr. Dan Nelson of Holmes and Graven stated that other cities in Minnesota have used
the program to assist in renovating their existing housing stock, especially with
regard to energy. conservation'. The City Manager stated the staff can check with the
cities of St. Louis Park and Plymouth and other cities and report back to the Council'
with regard to their experience with the program.
Mayor Nyquist suggested that the Council meet at the project prior to the next
Council meeting. He also inquired whether the City's Housing Commission has
reviewed the proposal. Mr. Nelson added that the Council does not need to reopen..
the public hearing since the only requirement is that it be held.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
table consideration of the Earle Frown Farm Apartments Multi- family housing Bond
until the November 19, 1984 City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION FJO. 84035 SUBMITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES FOR
EXTEIDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER APPLICATION NO. 84035 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 13 STORY HOTEL ON THE PARCEL OF LAND NORTH OF FREEWAY BLVD. A14D EAST
OF SHINGLL CREEK
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages one through two of the October 25, 1984 minutes and also the Planning
Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 84035. The Director of
Planning explained that the application is a request for extension of a special use
permit for construction of a 13 story hotel on I -1 zoned land. He then reviewed the
location of the subject parcel and the master plan for the site. He explained the
plan remains essentially unchanged from the original plan submitted and noted that
the applicant is present this evening, if the Council has any additional questions.
He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application with the 13
original conditions and two additional conditions which he reviewed for Council
members.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 84035 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished
to speak at the 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
close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 84035• Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, 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 Application No. 84035, subject to the following added conditions to
Application No. 83045:
14. A cash escrow, in an amount to be determined by the City Manager,
shall be submitted to cover the cost of street cleaning
associated with the placement of removal of fill on the site.
15. The applicant shall implement landscape plan prepared for the
City for the Shingle Creek greenstrip area adjacent to the hotel
site. Said landscaping shall be completed in conjunction with
the construction project prior to the release of the financial
guarantee required by Condition No. 5 of the original approval.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
11 -5 -84 -7-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO AMUSEMENT
DEVICES
The City Manager explained the ordinance was approved for first reading at the
October 1, 1984 City Council meeting, published in the City's official newspaper on
October 11, 1984, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. He noted
the ordinance amendment was initiated by a request from Showbiz Pizza to amend the
City ordinance to allow prizes to be awarded for skeeball.
In discussion of the ordinance amendment, the Council expressed a concern over the
possibility that awards granted under this ordinance may exceed the original intent
of the ordinance. The City Manager added that the Council concern will be noted in
the minutes.
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -13
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO AMUSEMENT
DEVICES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly'
passed and adopted.
AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH HOWE, INC. `
FOR STAIRWELL MODIFICATION IN THE OFFICE AREA AT THE HOWE SITE
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed a transparency of the proposed
stairwell modification which would provide access to the lower level of the existing
office building. He explained that the modifications had been reviewed by staff
and the Planning Commission and that he believes the modifications proposed would
not comprehend normal site and building plan requirements. He explained the major
concern was that it not be an expansion of the nonconforming use. He then proceeded
to review the findings contained in the agreement and recommended approval.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into An Agreement Regarding a
Stairwell Addition by Howe, Inc. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, 'Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
APPOINTMENT OF CANVASSERS FOR NOVEI;BER 6, 1984 ELECTION
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
appoint the following persons as canvassers for the 'November 6, 1984 General
Election: Gerald Splinter, Peter Koole, Brad Hoffman, Al Lindman, Sy Knapp, Tom
Bublitz, Geralyn Barone, Jim Lindsay, Will Dahn, Gene Hagel, Joe Oster, Ron Warren,
and Darlene Weeks. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
EXTENSION OF' LEASE AGREEMENT FOR NORTHBROOK LIQUOR STORE
The City Manager briefly reviewed the extension agreement for the Northbrook Liquor
Store lease.
11 -5 -84 -8-
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the Extension Agreement for the
Northbrook Liquor Store Lease. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
STAFF REPORT ON BROOKDALE SUBSTATIOT:
The City Nanager reported on the Brookdale Substation and explained that two
officers will volunteer for the assignment and that Brookdale has made rooms
available for booking which will eliminate the need for transport to the City's
police department. He added that the substation is primarily designed to deal with
shoplifting, forgery, and bad checks which tend to increase during the holiday
season. He explained the program will be judged on the efficient use of man power
since the holiday shopping season creates a particular demand at the Brookdale area.
STAFF REPORT ON CABLE TELEVISION
The ity Hanager reported the status of the cable television system in Brooklyn
Center, including a review of rates, proposed sale of the system, construction
status and the exchange of converters. He explained the rate freeze extends to
September 1986 and that Storer has requested some relief on the rate increases for
premium channels, since the system is not as profitable as first calculated. He -
pointed out that the request for rate increase is still below the average for the
metro area.
Councilmember Lhotka stated that` he had a hard time understanding why such a low bid
was submitted in th°e`fsxsv plaee.'` The City Manager replied that the other two
bidders were also. very close to the Storer bid, and that he along with several other
- people on the Commission doubted whether any of the bidders could live up to their
bids.
With regard to the sale, he explained the Commission will investigate the new
owners, prior to the approval of any sale, and also will request a financial
disclosure by Storer. He pointed out the State Cable Board must also approve any
sale.
Finally, the City Manager reviewed the construction schedule and explained that
single family areas are essentially complete and cable signal is available. With
regard to townhouses and apartments, he explained wiring agreements must be
negotiated prior to installation and he believes the majority of townhouses and
apartments have been hooked up. He explained the policy is that if individuals have
a wiring agreement signed by November 15 they will be hooked up on the first of the
year.
The City Manager concluded his remarks by reporting on the conversion of the
converters from Zenith to Jerold converters. He explained that half -way through
installation the company ran into supply problems from Zenith and there are also
technical problems with the Zenith converter and the company requested that they be
allowed to switch Jerold to converters. He added that the Jerold converters do not
have as many features as the Zenith, but they are apparently more reliable.
In conclusion, the City Manager pointed out that, with regard to the physical
equipment in the cable system, the northwest system is one of the finest cable system
in the United States.
11 -5 -84 -9-
TAXICAB LICENSE FOR SUBURBAN YELLOW TAXI
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the taxicab license for Suburban Yellow Taxi. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve the following list of licenses:
COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE
Daisy May Dog Grooming 6830 Humboldt Ave. N.
Northbrook Animal Hospital 413 66th Ave. N.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Hale Company, Inc. 1450 W. County Rd. C
LeVahn Brothers 3200 Penn Ave. N.
TAXICAB LICENSE
Suburban Yellow Cab 127 1st Ave. NE
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
T ere was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9 :50 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
11 -5 -84 -10
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUIJON N0.
RESOLUhION ESTABLISHING 1VA`I7:R ASSI SSi•II'NI' 12A`IES EFFECTIVI
JANUARY 1, 1985
WIEREAS, Resolution Nos. 74 -45 and 77 -113 provided for the annual
adjustment of water assessment rates for non - single family residential and
single- family residential properties, respectively; and
1AIEREAS, said adjustment in water assessment rates is specified
in said resolutions to be effective January 1 of each year; and
1VIIEREAS, said adjustment is also specified in said resolutions to
be in accordance with the annual change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price
Index for the preceding month of October; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council that
the change in the Twin Cities Consumer Price Index from October, 1983 to
October, 1984, was an increase of 3.5 percent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the water assessment rates effective
January 1, 1985 shall be as follows:
f Assessment 1985 Rate
Single Family Residences $2,484.00/lot
Frontage $25.43 /front foot
Area $7.89/100 square feet
Service Hookup $587.00 /each
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
p o e -g � g
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLU'T'ION NO.
RESO l ' ' 0 :N NG r ; P STREET CONSTRUCTION
L TT '
I .� ' ATIl DL TU'VICI AL SI'ATI: AID
POLICY
t1fIT1ZIAS, the City's Municipal State Aid Street policy comprehends
the establishment of maximum assessment rates to benefiting residential
properties for street improvements to Municipal State Aid Streets; and
WHIM- S, said policy provides that the maximum rates will be
adjusted annually based on current day costs; and
titIEREAS, the Director of Public Works has reported that the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Minneapolis area
has increased 0.7 percent between October, 1983 and October, 1984.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center:
1. that the maximum assessment rate to residential properties
for a street paving improvement on a Municipal State Aid
Street shall be increased from $11.60 per assessable foot
to $11.68 per assessable foot.
2. that the maximum assessment rate to residential properties
for concrete curb and gutter installation on Municipal
State Aid Streets shall be increased from $12.20 per
assessable foot to $12.29 per assessable foot.
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
r
P,erriber introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF TWO SNOW BOX INSERTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 83 -172, written quotations were
received and tabulated for the purchase of two snow box inserts; and
WHEREAS, quotations received were as follows:
Bidder Quotation Total Cost
Bryan Equipment, Inc., Minneapolis $3,6 ea0 ea0 $7,300
Arnold's Equipment Inc., St. Cloud 1N00 ea. $7,600
WHEREAS, the quotation received from Bryan Equipment, Inc., was the lowest
quotation meeting specifications from a responsible dealer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn
Center that the quotation for (2) Two Snow Box Inserts From Bryan Equipment, Inc. be
accepted and the City Manager be authorized to purchase the same from funds
appropriated in the 1985 Budget.
I a
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
i
I
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
J
E
i
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION 110.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BIDS FOR DELIVERY OF ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that the
specification for the delivery of one (1) 14 Foot Aluminum Step Van is hereby
approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to advertise for and recieve bids for the delivery of One (1) 14 Foot
Aluminum Step Van 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 P,ROOELYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
PROVISIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN
1. GENERAL
All bids must be received at the office of the City Clerk on or before 2:30 p.m.
January 9, 1985, and shall be submitted on the enclosed proposal form in a sealed
envelope, plainly marked "Bid for Step Van."
Each bid shall be accompanied by a certified check or bidder's bond payable to
the City Clerk, in the amount of at least five per cent (5%) of the total amount
bid.
It is also understood that the City Council reserves the right to reject any or
all bids, to waive informalities and to award the contract to the best interest
of the City.
The Step Van 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 Step Van 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
Step Van 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 a suit and save the City harmless in all
such actions.
2. GUARANTEE _
r
The bidder shall guarantee this equipment as to the specified capacity and
satisfactory performance and to be free of defects in design, material and
workmanship. All defective equipment shall be replaced free of cost to the
City of Brooklyn Center for a period of one year from date of delivery.
3. DELIVERY DATE
The successful bidder shall schedule delivery to the City of Brooklyn Center for
the earliest date possible.
4. Award of the contract by the City of Lrooklyn Center will be fused on, but not
necessarily limited to, the factors of price, delivery date, parts and service,
i as well as analysis and comparison of specifications and performance.
5. SAFETY STANDARDS
The Step Van bid shall have all the safety devices and shall meet the
requirements of the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry; Division of
Accident Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
6. SERVICE PANUALS
Repair manuals, shop type, operator's handbook and parts book shall be
furnished, including parts book for body of van.
5
SPI.CLFICATIGNS FOR 14 FOOT
ALUN,INUh'. LOIiY STEP VAN
14,000 GVW
GENERAL
The vehicle and /or equipment called for herein shall be a new 14,000 GVW'step van
furnished with an aluminum body, currently advertised incorporating all the latest
changes and features, including all the safety devices and tools to make a
satisfactory operating unit. The unit shall meet the requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Accident Protection, and the U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Gross Vehicle Weight:
14,000 lbs.
Wheel base
157"
Body
The van shall have an all aluminum body equal to the Grumman or J.B. Olson units,
furnished according to the following:
Front doors - sliding camlock type with ventilating glass windows
roll up type
Rear door 38" wide with windows and key lock
Roof - furnished with headliner and roof vent and sky light
Sides - insulated with styrofoam or fiberglass and covered with
panelling
Interior height - 80"
Interior width - 86"
6 cargo lights center of roof
Ladder for access to roof on back right hand side -
Cab
2 spot lights
Seats - two heavy duty
Sun visors - dual
Windshield wiper - dual, 2 -speed electric with washers
Heater - fresh air type with defrosters
Mirrors - left and right side - 6 x 16 stainless steel convex mirror on
bottom, retractable
Guages oil pressure, water temperature, gas supply, ampmeter
Glass - all tinted
AM radio
Chassis
Brakes - 4 -wheel disc with power assist
Steering - power assist
Rear axle - 11,000 lb. with dual wheels with 4.10 ratio
Front axle - with stabilizing bar
Springs - 5,900 lb. rear (each) and 4,500 front
Shock absorbers - heavy duty front and rear
Transmission - automatic 4 -speed with park
Tires 8 -19.5# 10 ply, firstline tubeless with rear tires to be mud
and snow type, furnish spare rim
Bumpers - front with two hooks; rear, heavy duty step type
(chromeplated, front)
Gas tank - 30 gallon minimum
Engine
-1 50 cubic inch with engine oil cooler full flow oil filters, fuel
filter and air cleaner
Electrical
Alternator shall be 100 amp minimum
Batteries, dual 4,000 watt 80 amp hr. - no 705 dual battery selector
and disconnect switch
Horns - dual electric
Color
Dupont Red #1863 DH Imron
PROPOSAL
ONE (1) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAT)
TO:
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, VIN 55430
Gentlemen:
We propose to furnish and deliver one 14 foot aluminum step van according to the
specifications at the following bid price:
1. Base bid price
2. Optional Equipment
total
3. Total bid price
Delivery date
(calendar days
In guarantee of sincerity of purpose in entering this bid, the undersigned encloses
a certified check or bidder's bond in the amount of five per cent (5%) of the total
amount bid, made payable to the City of Brooklyn Center, which it is agreed will be
forfeited to the City in the event that said contract is not executed as herein
stipulated in the event that said proposal is accepted.
Signed
Firm Name
Address
Date
Bid opening 2:30 p.m.
January g, 1985
f,
t
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the
City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, was
held at the City Offices in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on
December , 1984.
The following members were present:
and the following members were absent:
Member introduced a written resolution, a
copy of which is appended hereto, and moved its adoption. The
motion for adoption of such resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon a vote being taken thereon the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
a
Resolution -No.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BROQirLYN CEWrER, HENNEPIN
COUNTY, "+MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING T`iE ISSUANCE OF $3,360,000
TOTAL AUTHORIZED PRINCIPAL AMOUNT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,
MINNESOTA, FLOA'T'ING RATE DEMAND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (3ROOKDALS OFFICE PARK PROJECT),
SERIES 1984 AND APPROVING THE FORM THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota (the City) as follows:
Section 1. Fi ndings . It is hereby found and declared
that:
1.1) The City is authorized by the Minnesota Municipal
Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as
amended (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds to finance, in
whole or in part, the cost of acquisition, construction,
reconstruction, improvement, betterment, or extension of any
properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with
a revenue producing enterprise, and to enter into a revenue
agreement, as defined in the Act, with the party to whom the
proceeds of the sale of the revenue bonds are loaned providing
for payments to be made by such party in such amounts as shall
from time to time be necessary to produce income and revenue
sufficient to provide for the prompt payment of principal
and interest on such revenue bonds when due.
• t
1.2) tinder the Act, the City issued its Commercial
Development Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Office Park Partnership
Project) Series 1982 in the aggregate principal amount of
$8,200,000 (the Original Bonds) in order to finance a portion
of the cost of a project under the Act on behalf of Brookdale
Office Park Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership (the
Company)
1.3) At the time of the issuance of the Original Bonds,
the contemplated project consisted of the acquisition,
construction, improvement, and equipping of three commercial
office buildings located in the area northwest of the Brookdale
Shopping Center in the City (the Project). Only one office
building, approximately 55,000 square feet in size, was
actually constructed and the unused portion of the proceeds of
the sale of the Original Bonds has previously been used to
redeem a portion of the Original Bonds prior to` maturity.
;-
1.4) By Resolution No. 81 -65 duly adopted on March 23,
1981, after public hearing duly called, noticed, and held on
March 23, 1981, this Council gave approval to the Project and
preliminarily approved the issuance and sale of revenue bonds
under the Act to finance the Project.
•
1.5) By R�2solutiorn No. 32 -20, adopt,�d January 11, 1932, `
this Council approved tha issuance of the Original Bonds to
provide financing for the Project.
1.6) The Original Bonds remaining outstanding will matur3
on January 1, 1985, and the Company has requested that the City
issue revenue bonds under the Act in the aggregate principal
amount of $3,360,000 (the Bonds), the proceeds of which,
together with other funds, will be used to pay and refund the
Original Bonds. Pursuant to the proposal, the proceeds of the
Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Company, and the
Company will agree to make payments sufficient to pay the
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds.
1.7) By Resolution No. , adopted June 25, 1984, after
a public 'nearing duly called, noticed, and held on June 25,
1984, pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) and the
regulations adopted thereunder (the Regulations), this Council
approved the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the approval of
the interested parties of the definitive terms and conditions
of the bond issuance transaction, and authorized the prep
aration of the documents to evidence the bond issuance
transaction.
1.8) It is proposed that: (1) the City enter into an
Indenture of Trust, dated as of December 1, 1984 (the_
Indenture), with First Trust Company of Saint Paul (the
Trustee), to provide, among other things, for - the issuance of
the Bonds by - into
enter
the City; 2 the City and the Company
Y ( ) Y
Y
a Loan Agreement, dated as of December 1, 1984 the Loan
Agreement), under which the proceeds of the Bonds would be
loaned to the Company in order to pay and refund the Original
Bonds. Under the Loan Agreement, the Company is to pay to the
City sufficient moneys to pay the principal of, premium, if
any, and interest on the Bonds when due, and the Company, at
its own cost, is, among other duties, to keep the Project in
good repair, keep the Project properly insured and pay real
estate taxes assessed against the Project; (3) in order; to
secure the performance of the Company's obligations under the
Loan Agreement, the Company will enter into a Combination
Mortgage, Security Agreement, and Fixture Financing Statement,
dated as of December 1, 1984 (the Mortgage) granting the
Trustee a mortgage and security interest in the Project and a
First Assignment of Leases and Rents, dated as of December 1,
1984 (the First Assignment), granting to the Trustee a security
4 Pr j
interest in leases and rents from the Pro � ( ) as
additional security for the Company's obligations under the
Loan Agreement, the partners of the Company, Gary S. Holmes,
Harold Roitenberg, and C. F. Sheehy, Jr. (collectively, the
Guarantors) will execute and deliver a Guaranty, dated as of
December 1 1984 (the Trustee Guaranty), in favor of the
Trustee; (5) as additional security, the First National Bank of
Minneapolis (the Bank) will issue an irrevocable letter of
3.
�. *a^r sv',- . ..W .... :.c.- .:yi6w+se^nx anc�+�.n ,r •, - e. n... r:,w;. . - a L7tiT'. `; a1:. y- si..:rL...'...w ia....i «......w.4Y`i."Y:L.• ,
credit, to be dated the date of issuance of the Bonds (the
Letter of Credit) ", in favor of the Trustee. Draws may be made
by the Trustee under the Letter of Credit to pay installments
of interest on the Bonds when due, to pay principal upon
redemption or acceleration, and to fund the purchase of Bonds
by the Trustee under certain circumstances described in the
Indenture; (6) the Company will reimburse the Bank for draws
made under the Letter of Credit, pursuant to a Letter of Credit
Agreement dated as of December 1, 1984, among the Trustee, the
Bank, and the Company (the Letter of Credit Agreement); (7) in
order to secure the obligations of the Company under the Letter
of Credit Agreement, the Company will make a Combination
Mortgage, Security Agreement, and Fixture Financing Statement,
dated as of December 1, 1984 (the Bank Mortgage), which is
subordinate to the Mortgage, in favor of the.Bank against the
Project and will enter into the Second Assignment of Leases and
Rents, dated as of December 1, 1984 (the Second Assignment),
granting to the Bank a security interest in leases and rents of
the Project subordinate to that of the Trustee under the First
Assignment, (8) to further secure the obligations of the
Company under the Letter of Credit Agreement, the Guarantors
will execute a Guaranty, in favor of the Bank, dated as of
December 1, 1984 (the Bank Guaranty); and (9) in the event that
a Holder of the Bonds makes proper demand under the Indenture
for purchase of the Bonds by the Trustee or upon mandatory
purchase of the Bonds by the Trustee, as provided in the
Indenture, prior to the termination or expiration of the Letter
of Credit, a Remarketing Agent (the Remarketing Agent) is to
use its best efforts to remarket the tendered Bonds, or the
Bonds to be mandatorily purchased, as the case may be, under
the provisions of a Remarketing Agreement dated as of December
1,' 1984, between the Company and the Remarketing Agent (the
Remarketing Agreement).
1.9) The findings of this Council made at (a) and (b) of
Resolution No. 82 -20 are true and correct as of the date
hereof, are incorporated herein by reference, and are hereby
ratified and confirmed.
1.10) The financing of the Project, the issuance and sale
of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $3,360,000,
the execution and delivery g of the Loan Agreement and the
Indenture, and the performance of all of the covenants and
agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement and the
Indenture and of all other acts and things required under the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the
Loan Agreement and the Indenture and the Bonds valid and
binding obligations enforceable in accordance with their terms,
are authorized by the Act.
1.11) It is desirable that the Bonds issued by the City
• under the terms set forth in this Resolution and the Indenture,
under the provisions of which the City's interest in the Loan
Agreement and the payments thereunder will be pledged to the
4 .
Tr-ust•�e as security for the, payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bondo.
1.12) The execution and dcliv^ry of and the performance of
the City's ohligation3 under the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, and
the Indenture have been fully authorized by all requisite:
action and do not and will not violate. any law, any provision
of the City Charter, any order of any court or other agency of
government, or any indenture, agreement, or other instrument to
which the City is a party or by which it or any of its property
is bound, or be in conflict with, result in breach of, or
constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both') a default
under any such.indenture, agreement,'or other instrument.
1.13) 110 litigation is pending or, to the best knowledge of
the-members of this Council, threatened against the City
questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the
night of any officer of the City to hold his or her office, or
in any manner questioning the right and power of the City to
execute and deliver the Bonds, or otherwise questioning the
validity of the proposed Loan Agreement or the Indenture or
questioning the appropriation of revenues for the payment of
the Bonds or the right of the City to lend the proceeds of the
Bonds to the Company.
1.14) All acts and things required under the Constitution
and the laws of the State of iinnesota to make the Loan
Agreement, the Indenture, and the Bonds the valid and binding
• obligations of the City in accordance with their terms will
have been done upon adoption of this Resolution and the
execution and delivery of the.Loan- Agreement, the Indenture,
and the Bonds.
1.15) Pursuant to the above, there have been prepared and
presented to this Council copies of the following documents,
all of which are now placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk:
(01) The Loan Agreement;
(02) The Indenture;
(03) The Mortgage;
(04) The First Assignment;
(05) The Trustee Guaranty;
(06) The Bank Mortgage;
(07) The Second Assignment;
(08) The Bank Guaranty;
5.
(09) The Letter of Credit;
(10) The Letter of Credit Agreement; and
(11) The Remarketing Agreement.
Section 2. Authorization for Issuance and Sale of Bonds
and Execution of Documents
2.1) Authorization and Execution of Documents - The forms
of the documents listed in paragraph 1.15 above are approved,
with such variations, insertions, and additions as are deemed
appropriate by the parties thereto and approved by the City
Attorney. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized
and directed to execute, attest, and deliver the Loan Agreement
and the Indenture. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement
P
and the. Indentur`, when. executed and del ivered as authorized
herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as
fully and to the sam., extent as if incorporated verbatim herein
and shall be in full force and effect from the date of
execution and delivery thereof. The Loan Agreement and the
Indenture shall be substantially in the forms on file in the
office of the City Clerk but with such variations, omissions,
and insertions as may be approved by the officers executing the
same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by such Q
execution.
2.2) Authorization for"* ssuance and Sale of Bonds Fo`r
the purpose of paying and refunding the Original Bonds, there
is hereby authorized the issuance of the $3,360,000 total
authorized principal amount City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota -
a Floating Rate Demand Commercial Development Revenue Refunding
Bonds (Brookdale Office Park Project), Series 1984. The Bonds
shall be issued in fully registered form, shall be in such
denominations, shall bear interest, shall be numbered, shall be
dated, shall mature, shall be in such form and shall have such
other details and P rovisions as are prescribed by the
Indenture. The Bonds shall be sold and delivered to the
Original Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price therefor,
all as provided in the Indenture.
2.3) Special Obligations - The Bonds shall be special
obligations of the City, payable solely from the revenues
received by the City under the Loan Agreement. The Bonds do
not constitute a debt of the City, nor does the City pledge its
full faith and credit to the payment of the Bonds. The Bonds
shall
not constitute an indebtedness of the State of Minnesota,
the County of Hennepin, or the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statutory provisions whatsoever, nor shall
the Bonds constitute or give rise to a pecuniary liability or
be a charge against the general credit or taxing power of the
State of Minnesota, the County of Hennepin, or the City.
6.
2.4) Execu of Bond - The Bonds shall be executed by
the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City
Manager and th` official seal of the City, or a facsimile
thereof, shall be imprinted thereon, all as provided in the
Indenture. The Trustee is hereby appointed authenticating
agent pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subd. 1.
All Bonds shall contain an authentication certificate, to be
executed by the Trustee as authenticating agent.
2.5) Absence of Officers - In the absence of the Mayor or
the City Manager, any of the Bonds and any of the other
documents authorized by this resolution to be executed and
delivered may be executed and delivered by the acting Mayor or
the acting City ,'tanager or any other member of the City Council
in place of the Mayor or City Manager, or such other officers
of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, have
authority to execute and deliver such documents.
Section 3. Miscellaneous
3.1) Election The City hereby elects that provisions of
Section 103(b)(6)(D) of the Code apply to the Bonds. The City
Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and file
with the Internal Revenue Service a statement
of election on
behalf of the City that the $10,000,000 limitation of Section
103(b)(6)(D) of the Code applies to the Bonds
3.2) Invalidity In case any one or more of the pro
visions of this Resolution, the Loan Agreement, the Indenture,
or any of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be
held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity
shall not affect any other provision of this Resolution, the
Loan Agreement, the Indenture, or the Bonds,but this
Resolution, the Indenture, the Loan Agreement, and the Bonds
shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid
provision had not been contained therein.
3.3) Regularity of Issuance - The Bonds shall contain a
recital that the Bonds are being issued pursuant to the Act,
and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity
of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and
that all acts, conditions, and things required by the
Constitution and the laws of the State relating to the adoption
of this Resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds and to the
execution of the Loan Agreement and the Indenture to happen, to
exist, and to be performed precedent to and in the enactment of
this Resolution and precedent to the issuance of the Bonds and
precedent to the execution of the Loan Agreement and th:e
Indenture, have happened, do exist and have been performed as
so required by law.
3.4) Performance The officers of the City, attorneys,
and other agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized
to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection
7 .
,
with this Resolution, the Bonds, the Loan :Agreement and the
Indenture, for the full, punctual, and complete performance of
all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the
Bonds, the Loan Agreement, and the Indenture.
3.5) Certifications The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk,
and other officers of the City are hereby authorized and
directed to prepare and furnish to Larkin, Hoffman, Daly &
Lindgren, Ltd., bond counsel, to the Company, to the Trustee,
to the Bank, and to counsel for such parties, certified copies
of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the
Project and the Bonds, and such other affidavits and
certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing
from the books and records in the officers' custody and control
or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies,
certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore
furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to
the truth of all statements contained therein.
3.6) Definitions - Terms not otherwise defined in this
Resolution, but defined in the Indenture or the Loan Agreement,
shall have the same meanings in this Resolution as provided in
the Indenture or the Loan Agreement.
3.7) Effective Date of Resolution This Resolution shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Adopted by the City Council on , 1984.E
[SEAL]
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
8.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HELNN >EPI A
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting
City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, or an
appropriate official of said City authorized to execute
documents on behalf of said City Clerk, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes
with the original thereof on 'file in my office, and that the
same is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of
a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held
on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate
to authorization for the issuance of the $3,360,000 Floating
Rate Demand Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds
(Brookdale Office Park Project), Series 1984 by the City.
WITNESS my hand and seal this day of December, 1984.
(SEAL)
City Clerk
9.
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Ass'stant
DATE: November 29, 1984 ,
SUBJECT: IRB for Brookdale Office Park
The resolution before the Council will be for final approval for the refunding
or refinancing of that office development. As noted in the attached letter,
the bonds will be a private placement. The Council gave its preliminary
approval to the refunding at its June 25, 1984 meeting.
I
The documents and the final resolution are in proper form and it is recommended
that final approval be given. The Brooklyn Office Park Project (Brooklyn
Crossings) is located on County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard.
Lci�c►�c►:L
Le(lcr
KcIl l )M V
�)�iI7ClI
Ih - awz
.► Plofcssional
:►ss(x iatiun
2000 Fist Bank Place West November 27 , 1984
Minneapolis
Minnesota 55402
Telephone (612) 333 -0543
Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Mr. Brad Ho ffman
Clayton L. LeFevere
Administrative Assistant Herbert P. Lefler City of B rooklyn Center
J. Dennis O 'Brien 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
John E.Drawz Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
David J. Kennedy
John B. Dean
Glenn E. Purdue Re Commercial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds
Richard J.Schieffer (Brookdale. Office Park Project) Series 1984
Charles L. LeFevere
Herbert P. Lefler III CitV of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
.Jeffrey J. Strand Our File No. B -2636
Mary J. Bjorklund
John G. Kressel Dear Brad:
Dayle Nolan
Cindy L. Lavorato
Michael A. Nash I have reviewed the final resolution and the underlying
Brian F. Rice ylri g
Lorr Clugg documents for the above transaction and find that they
Ja hoson, are in proper form for consideration by the City
` Jam m
c�s'IGI. Strommen
Mary C. Nielsen COUnCll at its meeting on December 3rd.
Terry L. Hall
Ronald H. Batty The transaction is extremely complex but represents a
very common type of industrial revenue financing now in
use. The mechanics of it are explained quite well in
the enclosed article from "Credit Markets" which also
indicates the reasons for the popularity for this type
of instrument.
In general terms the bonds are issued at a floating
variable interest rate which approximates the current
short term interest rate with the holders of the bonds,
usually a tax exempt fund, having the right to tender
the bonds back to the trustee for purchase at scheduled
intervals at which time the bonds are remarketed by a
remarketing agent, again at variable rates T he
g ►
g
g
company also has the option at stated intervals of
requesting that the bonds be converted to fixed .rate
long term bonds when interest rates are favorable and
there is a market for such bonds. The bonds are
secured by a mortgage on the project, a letter of
credit from First National Bank of Minneapolis and a
guaranty from the partners of the Company. With these
credit enhancement devices the bonds will be rated by
Standard and Poors as AA bonds. The issue will be
purchased by Miller & Schroeder, as placement agent who
Mrr.. Prad Hoffman
City of Brooklyn Center.
Page 2
•
intends to place them with two large institutional
investors: thus, there is not official statement
describing the bonds and the bonds are in effect issued
as a private placement rather than a public offering.
The issue, also, refunds the outstanding bonds of the
1982 issue of the City for this project. As refunding
bonds they are outside the limitations of the federal
and state volume limit statute and regulations, and do
not affect the City's entitlement allocation in any
way.
Your e y truly,
David J. Kennedy
DJK:caw
cc: Stephen Solomon
l�
Issu and Investors Floc king
T o Varia Demand
1
1984 To Billion By Gretchen Chell The new arbitrage curbs have
also contributed to the surge in de
WASHINGTON — Issuers and In- mand for these bonds by drying up
vestors have embraced variable- the supply of tax- exempt housing
rate demand bonds so enthusiasti project notes from the Department
catty that this year's volume may of Housing and Urban Development
soar to an unprecedented $14 bil- that short -term investors also
lion — more than double last year. favored.
Sales of demand bonds — which Demand bonds are the shortest-
are long -term put bonds with very term versions of put bonds, which
short put periods = soared from allow the bondholder to sell. or put,
zero four years ago to $7 billion in his bond back to the issuer. The
1983. "demand" In their name comes
This year's growth promises to be from the structure of their put fea-
even more spectacular. In the first tures. which usually allows the
10 months, an impressive $7.03 bondholder to choose the put date
billion have been sold — and the within the put period, so that he is
market is now in the midst of a able to put the bond back "on
yearend avalanche that could raise demand."
the final total to $14 billion. Demand bonds usually have put
Demand bonds have been used
extensively this year to finance pol- periods of a day, a week, a month.
lution control projects, hospitals, or a calendar quarter, the market
single- family houses, and electric generally refers to them as "dai-
power plants. lies," "weeklies," "monthlies,"
"It's the best thing that's ever and "quarterlies." The bonds are
happened to local finance," said priced as if they were short - term
Earl Hoenes, city treasurer of notes even though they can mature
Grand Rapids, Mich., and past as far out as 30 years. Most demand
president of the Municipal Treasur- bonds have a weekly put feature.
er Association of the United States Demand bonds carry variable
and Canada. "it's a coming thin
rates that are adjusted periodically,
and is starting to spread." usually based on an index compiled
The yearend surge in demand from rates on similar issues. The
bonds is the result of Issuers trying rate- adjustment period and put pe-
to beat new federal limits on arbi- riod are usually the same.
trage and Industrial development (The put bonds with longer puts
bond Issuance that take effect Jan. of six months to 10 years are gener-
1, and catching up on a backlog of ally called just that — put bonds —
Issues delayed during the summer and handled by the intermediate
while and long -term markets. Bondhold-
the bond restrictions were
while decided. ers can generally put these bonds
being only at the interest rate adjustment
On the investing side. Institu date.)
tions. bond funds. and bank trust The short put feature on demand
departments have stepped up their bohds make them an attractive al-
purchases because they like the ternative to traditional long -term,
short -term nature of the bonds and fixed -rate bonds. Because the
the fact that they can sell them bondholder can put the bond back
back at par. In addition, corpora- at short intervals. they can be
tions — bouncing back in the eeo priced as short -term instruments,
nomic recovery, flush with cash, with yields well below the long-
and in need of tax shelters forgrow-
ing profits — have become major
buyers of these tax- exempt bonds.
E.F. I lutton generally figures its but say operational problems make
term fixed -rate bonds. At the same rates once a month according to the such a move impractical for the
time, the bonds are structured so 30-dav vic•Icl at par of between 20 time being.
that the rates can be fixed if long ;'I'd •in conunercfal paper Issues. Major players in demand bonds
term yields drop enough. project antes, bond anticipation who supplied vellums• HL; fires are
Conceived just four years ago by notr%and tax anticipation notes se- E.F. Hutton, 13 uikers Trust, Merrill ;
E.F. Ilutton & Co. in response to re- iected by Kenn }' information -*)vs- Lynch, Goldman. Sachs & Co.. and
cord high interest rates, demand toms Inc. The index used by Hutton'. Shearson Lehman. Kidder. Pca-
bonds have become so popular that generally produces a rate that Is
body 1?t Co., Salomon Brothers. 11or-
most investment banking firms 47.5% of the prime rate, according gan Guaranty Trust Co., and Citi-
have set up or are setting up depart- to Gerald Fallon, first vice president hank. First Boston Corp. and I'atne
ments to offer a full range of short- at E.F. Hutton and manager of the W Inc. al
h rt Webber so a pp e ar
term financial instruments. municipal note department. prominent, but no definitive figures t
"Short -term instruments are On the other end of the spectrum, are available. p
comprising a larger share of the Salomon Brothers Inc. prices de- In surveying firms for demanei
municipal market," said Philip mand notes every day — using 30- bond activity, it is more useful to
Kassin, vice president in the public day municipal commercial paper as look at who is the remarketin
finance department at Merrill a guideline — for its daily demand agent rather than the lead under
Lynch Capital Markets. "We see all bond program known as Daily Ad- writer. For one thing, each issue
firms setting up short -term (tax -ex- justable Tax - exempt Securities, or usually has only one remarketintt
empt securities( departments." DATES. Daily demand notes are agent. More importantly, the lea(!
Demand bonds have introduced a used primarily by sophisticated is- underwriter's responsibility to the
new player to the municipal mar suers, such as utilities, who benefit issue is over once the bonds are
ket: the remarketing agent. If a from the notes' lower rates. placed, but the remarketing agent
bondholder decides to put his bond Salomon Brothers said the dailies will be involved for the issue's en
back to the issuer, the issuer can currently yield 25 to 50 basis points tire lifetime.
try to resell the bond through the less than demand notes with a So far this year. E.F. Hutton has
longer put feature. But investment become remarketing agent for 55
remarketing agent, who usually bankers said the dailies are so new demand bond Issues totaing $1.15
was the underwriter or placement that it is not certain if they can billion, and the firm expects to be
agent for the issue. maintain their rate advantage over
The remarketing agent must be g the agent for up to 50 more issues
able to resell the demand bonds or longer -term demand bonds. worth between $500 million and $1
hold them until a buyer is found. Other investment banking firms billion by yearend. Since Septem
The agent is also responsible for and banks also offer daily demand ber 1981, when E.F. Hutton started
setting the rates on the bonds. bonds. Moreover, many firms will remarketing publicly placed de-
"The remarketin remarket any demand bond, re mand bonds. it has handled 195 is-
y '
� agent is the
E
ke said David Dougherty, senior gardless of the put, when sues totaling $4.56 billion.
requested. Bankers Trust is agent for 77
vice president at Bankers Trust Co, Brokers and bankers are also de- deals totaling $879 million sold in
and manager of its public finance veloping a variety of programs to the first 10 months of 1984 and ex-
group. "A floating rate is not a one - tailor demand bonds to the needs of pects 69 more issues worth $1.7
shot commitment. It requires a the issuer. billion to be sold this month and
week -to -week commitment and
capital. Shearson, for exam le, is devel-
P next. Since June 1981, Bankers
Remarketing agcnis are well paid oping a product called "Flexis." Trust has taken on 191 issues to-
which will give demand bond issu- talin $1.8 billion.
for their services, which is why ers the flexibility of selecting Merrill Lynch has also been ac-
many firms are willing to under- among everal ut features.
write demand bond offerings at a "Each instrument has a unique 31 issues totaling $950 million•
place," said Elissa Fitzig• vice Ares- and ex ects 13 more issues worth
come from the remarketing, p
The bonds have also spawned a ideal at Shearson Lehman and $673 million by yearend. Since Oc-
plethora b d interest rate indexes manager of its short -term finance_ tober 1981, the firm has become
that are set as often as to department. "There are ways in agent for 68 issues amounting to
daily or as which you can tap different sectors S 1.8 billion.
Infrequently as a year or more. of investors and help issuers." Goldman Sachs has taken on 19
Shearson . sets rates press Inc., for or Lehman/American exexampieple Salomon Brothers has set up a issues worth $957 million since
r book -entry system for demand January, and it expects to be agent
on demand bonds remarketed by bonds and plans to market all fu- for 15 to 20 more issues, worth
the firm according to the Shearson ture issues in book -entry form. (As $700 million, by yearend. Since
Lehman Tax- Exempt Commercial of now it would be the depository. July 1982, the firm has sold 44 is-
Paper Index. while Bankers Trust although that may change.) Other I sues amounting to $1.45 billion.
uses an Index that It developed. g g Shearson has jumped Into the
P firms are considerin doing de
called the tax-exempt note rate• mand bonds in book -entry f
firms TEN
set rates o on (pr arm, fray by becoming agent for 19 is-
a I sties totaling $780 million since
firms n a d tenor). Both weekly basis. uI January, bringing its total since
August 1982 to 42 issues amount -
ing to $991 million. The firm antict
pates handling 28 more issues, to
t 11g S 124 Wilton. that will come
wirke January. onion Brothers, which deals
i
sively In (tally demand notes,
Is agent for 10 issues totaling S555
million marketed this year and ex-
pects to handle $300 million more j
by yearend. Since last December. it
has become agent for 13 issues
worth $740 million overall.
Kidder Peabody has sold 15 de-
mand note issue amounting to ,n = m
•$518 million this year, bringing its -a Q ; 3 1
o
sales since February 1983 to 18 is : a w
sues worth $657 million. Kidder i 0
o ° `—
anticipates it will add $1 billion i I o o
more to its total by the end of ' ' A m
December. I Q 2
Morgan Guaranty Trust Co_ of CD
New York has marketed eight is-
sues totaling $376 million this year c I
and expects to sell 19 more issues.
C C
worth $390 million, before the year m o ° (p
Is over. v a = m
Citibank is remarketing agent for
eight issues totaling $260 million o. 3 I '
this year and expects to handle at o (A o I I
least nine more Issues in 1984. Fig- C: o a
ures for its pre -1984 sales were un- y �' 4 m
CD
available. Citibank takes a more ; °—�, ? °
conservative view of demand bonds o = !
that Bankers Trust and Morgan o m m I O N
aranty do. It acts as remarketing < o m ca
t for only those demand note 3 ; o _' -=R
V Q
s that the bank would be able CD Q ' C
to underwrite. m
Probably the only way the un n W d m_ y O
o 'o o
preeedented growth of demand m z 3 CT
notes will abate, some traders say. 0 1° C
is if long -term interest rates drop Q a ° CD
below 9 %. Long -term tax - exempt ! �;
revenue bonds currently yield
about 10.80%, compared with c a °
about 5 for daily demand bonds U CD
and 6% for weeklies. 0 1
Mr. Dougherty of Bankers Trust I (p I
said that If long -term rates fall be-
low 9 %. many issuers may convert
their demand bonds into long fixed- ,
rate bonds or perhaps maintain a ` =3
blend of both. He explained that I j
many issuers turned to demand ' m CO
bonds hoping that interest rates v °' 0
would drop and they could then se- m :3
cure a single - digit rate. ( CL
But Phylis Esposito. vice presi- W N
dent and manager of tax - exempt ° o 0 0
commercial paper and notes at
Goldman. Sachs & Co.. does not see
Issuers switching to long -term
bonds anvt ime soon. None of the 50
issuers work with Goldman
Sachs is considering conv erting its
demand bonds to longer puts or
fixed rates, she said. 57
Tax-Exempt Commercial r Market
.P l Paper
No Longer Enjoying Headlong Growth
While sales of variable -rate %ccure long -term financing be-
demand notes are soaring, an- fore yearend to avoid the arbi
other relatively new instrument tragr• limits. So many of them
in the short - term municipal have issued short -put bonds in-
market — tax - exempt commer- stead of commercial paper or
cial paper has put on the converted outstanding commer-
brakes. clal paper into short -put bonds.
Created 10 years ago, the tax - according to several investment
exempt commercial paper mar - bankvrs and bond counsel.
ket took off in 1981 when 81.5 Indeed, short -put bonds are
billion was authorized. But sales often snore useful than commer -
appear to have peaked. This cial paper. The short -put bonds
year there are 99 established do not have to be continually
tax- exempt commercial paper rolled over nor converted to
programs with an authorized long -term financing.
volume of$7.29 billion — only a "Unfortunately, the diver-
slight increase over last year, gence will continue and we will
when 92 programs were autho- see more variable -rate demand
rized to sell $6.2 billion. More- notes than commercial paper."
over, much of that authorized said Christian McCarthv. vice
volume may never be issued. president for investment bank -
Tax- exempt commercial pa- ing at Goldman, Sachs & Co.
per is a short -term promissory " Commercial paper will always
note backed by letters of credit be attractive to the larger. high-
or lines of credit from banks. quality issuers. but the universe
Most often, the paper matures In of potential users is not that
15 to 120 days andthen Is either large."
rolled over or replaced with per- But this. switch to short -put
manent financing. It has added bonds does not mean the end of
flexibility in that it does not tax - exempt commercial paper.
have to be issued In registered The tool will continue to be
form. used, for example, by large nur-
Commercial paper has been a nicipalitles for cash flow pur
useful tool for industrial reve- poses. Often, local governments
nue bond issuers, such as hospi- will sell commercial paper to -
tals and utilities. who use it to pay expenses while tax receipts
maintain cash flow during come In.
construction. In this sector. the most domi
This summer. however. the nant firms are Shearson Leh-
federal government enacted ar- man /American Express Inc..
bitrage limits that. as of Jan. 1, which is dealer for 31 programs
1985, require proceeds of IDB Is- with outstanding authorizatlon
sues other than multifamily of $2.12 billion: Goldman,
housing bonds to be used within Sachs & Co., dealer for 18 pro -
six months, after which time all grams worth $1.3 billion: First
earnings made from arbitrage Boston Corp., dealer for 13 pro -
must be remitted to the federal grams worth $1.11 billion: Salo -
government. Previously, the is- mon Brothers Inc.. dealer or
suer had three years to make ar- Joint manager for 12 programs
bitrage earnings before running worth $896 million: and Merrill
the risk of having the issue de- Lynch Capital Markets, dealer
clared taxable. for 13 programs worth $707
Because every rollover of com- million.
mercial paper Is considered a — GRETCHEN CHELL
new issue, issuers want to
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, t
Ci y Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
DATE: November 29, 1984✓
SUBJECT: Mortgage Revenue Bond Program
As the Council will. recall, part of the Brookwood development included the
issuance of tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds. Approximately 7.7 million
dollars were available at below market rates (11.650) for mortgage to first -time
home-buyers.
The first -time homebuyer mortgage program was very successful.. It was intended
to encourage a rollover in the ownership of existing homes in Brooklyn Center
as well as financing the purchase of new construction. It was also intended
to bring young families back into the City. At the end of October, 115
mortgages had been committed. Fifty -one (51) children have been added to the
City's population, with the average age of the buyer being 29 years In
essence, the majority of the program participants are young families.
The public hearing being held Monday night is to consider authorizing the
submission of an application by the City for new bonding authority from the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Three (3) cities will be authorized to
issue mortgage revenue bonds. If authorized to issue the bonds, the City
would have $10 million in mortgages available throughout the City.
At this time, several. banks and developers have indicated an interest in
participating in this program. Like our first issue, we would propose that
any direct costs to the City for the issuance of the bonds be absorbed by the
developers /banks participating in the program.
This program will make below market rate mortgages available to homebuyers in
Brooklyn Center. There are options available to the City, such as targeting a
neighborhood. Targeting is a consideration that will be discussed by the
Housing Commission prior to the Council's final: approval of the mortgage program.
Attached is a statistical analysis of our first as of October 31,
1984. The remaining money should be gone by the end of the year. When
complete, approximately 130 mortgages will have been issued under this program.
I will be available Mondav eveninq to discuss this program further. I would
recommend its approval.
D11`I'f November 5, 198 Page 1
CITY OF BIU)KLYN C111'I' .2
Statistical Data -- hrount of Program $7,703,787
Total Amount of Pre - Committed Loans $ 6,710
Percentage of Program Pre - Committed 87 %
Low Moderate Target
Income Income Income
Total Number of Loans 63 52 --
Average Mortgage Amount $ 55,538 $ 61,761 $ --
Average Sale Price 63,812 67,166 -
Average Appraised Value 64,749 68,138 --
Average Adjusted Gross Income 22,918 32,717 -
Average Gross Income 24,944 34 ,294 --
Type of Loan
Insured Conventional 21 37 --
Uninsured Conventional 8 5 --
Pledged Savings Account 34 10 --
Average Loan to Value Ratio:
Insured Conventional 92 % 94 % -- %
Uninsured Conventional 55.5 % 71.4 % %
Number of New Construction Loans 29 14 --
Number of Existing Loans 34 38 --
Type of Dwelling:
Single Family 34 38 --
Townhouse - 27 13 --
Condominium 1 1 -
Twin Hanes 1
Average Age 28.3 29 --
Average Previous Residents 25 % 35 $ -
Number of First -Time Homebuyers 57 47
Number of Non- First -Time
Hcmebuyers 6 5 --
Head of Household:
M1ale 42 46 r _ --
Female _ r . __
Average Family S ize 1.9 2.2 --
DATE: 11 -5 -84 Page 2
I ..
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Statistical Data -- Amount of Program - $7,703,787
Low Moderate Target
Inccn Income Income
Average Number of Children .47 S 4 -
Marital Status:
Married 2 7 34
Unmarried 34 10 -
Co- Borrowers 2 6 --
Separated - -- --
2 -Male Co- Borrowers == 2 --
2- Female Co Borrowers
TOTAL A40UNT FUNDED BY TRUSTEE $ 6,492,621,50
Number of Loans Funded 108
Dollar Amount of Funds Remaining $ 993,262
Low Income $ --
Moderate Income $ --
Target Inca - ne $
Total Pre- Ccurdtted Amount $ 6,7
$ 7,703,787
PJr,t w( !, /0( )1 itlti, in
1'to Adfiwi��.tration 1)el'xartniF:�nt
` >ut6 1.1O
>5U t;.t a1t1l1vrnuFi oath
Post Office Hox 1411
Mintioupolis, Minnesota 55401
6121343-3741
ember 5, 1984
±Ir. Gerald Splinter
ci ,.v of Brooklyn Center
f gI Shingle Creek Parkway
rooklyn Center, MN 55430
PE: Monthly Statistical Report
City of Brooklyn Center
Dear Mr. Splinter:
Attached is the monthly transaction report for the period ending
October 31, 1984.
If ou should have an questions concerning this report, lease
Y Y4 9 R �p
do not hesitate to call.
ADMINISTRATOR /SERVICER
CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN ER
,r i stine M. Arey
r
cc:Rr. Brad Hoffman
City of Brooklyn Center
Mr. James A. Ehrenberg
First Trust Company of St. Paul
r Paul Ekholm
m iller & Schroeder
DATE: November 21, 1984
` TO: All,Managers, Administrators, Elected Officials
FROM: William Joynes
Chairman, MAMA General Labor Relations Committee
RE: MAMA Jo int Comparable Worth Study
As many of you are aware, three months ago the Metropolitan Area Management
Association undertook a project to determine whether or not suburban cities
could jointly produce a study that would comply with comparable worth legisla-
tion enacted in the 1984 session. At that time, we asked cities to indicate
whether or not they would be willing to fund on an equal basis, our investiga-
tion into that possibility.. Some 57 communities agreed to do so at a cost of
approximately $200 per city. We estimated that amount would be required to
develop our request for proposals and to screen various consulting organizations
who might wish to bid on such a joint venture.
Our desire to approach the study jointly was based on two reasons: First, the
historical effort that MAMA has made in comparing wages and fringe benefits, and
the success we have had in keeping their levels consistent in the metro area.
Secondly, we felt that it was preferable for all MAMA cities to have used a com-
mon approach in the event that future litigation occurs.
We are now at a point where a committee of managers made up of myself, Bob
Thistle from Coon Rapids, Jim Miller from Minnetonka, Jim Brimeyer from St.
Louis Park, and Jim Lac-ina from Woodbury, with support from Labor Relations
Associates, is recommending to the 57 cities the selection of Control Data
Corporation Business Advisors as the vendor to accomplish the job evaluation
study mandated by State law. A summary of the proposal is attached for your
information.
At a December 4 1984 meeting of MAMA managers and administrators each of the 57
cities will be asked to indicate if they prefer to continue jointly or proceed
on their own with a separate study. To help cities make that decision, I have
attempted to provide more detailed background information on the screening pro-
cess, the rationale for the selection of CDC and the anticipated costs for the
Joint approach
SCREENING PROCESS
We began in August of this year by sending out _a generally worded RFP to 18
firms locally and nationally who had 'done job evaluation work in the private and
public sector. We received ten responses from the initial request. After a
considerable amount of evaluation, six firms were selected to be interviewed further. They included Haye Associates, Towers- Perrin - Forster and Crosby,
Control Data Corporation, Arthur Young and Associates, Hewitt and Associates,
Hallcrest- Craver. Associates.
Those interviews were conducted in October at the ,League offices by the RFP com-
mittee and members of the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities. At the
conclusion of that process, three firms were felt to merit further scrutiny.
They were Haye Associates, Towers- Perrin- Forster and Crosby, and Control Data
Corporation. It was felt that Arthur Young and Associates and Hewitt and
_2_
s
Associates, while providing a viable approach to job evaluation, did not present
a system that would fully satisfy the requirements of Minnesota law. Hall crest-
Craver was eliminated because we felt that with their staffing and current com-
mitments, a timely product might be a problem.
After that interview, the RFP committee developed a more detailed and specific
RFP, copies of which were sent to all interested cities.. The three consulting
firms were asked to make a second presentation which took place on November 6,
1984: Invited to that meeting were all the representatives of organized labor
represented in the MAMA communities, representatives from private employee asso-
ciations and any managers or administrators who wished to attend. At the
conclusion of the interview, the selection committee was unanimously in favor of
recommending the CDC system. The CDC proposal at $345,000 was, admittedly, the -
most expensive proposal we received; however, the unanimous feeling of the com-
mittee was that it was the one proposal that we felt would provide the best and
most legitimate results and would be the most easily maintained system over a
period of years.
RATIONALE FOR DECISION
I would like to briefly discuss some of the thoughts of the committee regarding
the selection of CDC which I hope will explain why that choice was made. First
and foremost, the Control Data Corporation proposal offers to do job evaluations
on all of a given city's positions. We originally thought the cost of doing
such a study to be prohibitive, and had suggested in the RFP that an evaluation
study that included 25 benchmark jobs would be more appropriate. CDC bid that
benchmark study but added that for a nominal additional charge, it would be a
simple task to do all of the positions in all cities. CDC Business Advisors'
computer capability makes the extension of the study to all individual positions
in each city, a relatively simple matter. The other consulting proposals did
not offer that capability.
A very strong argument for the selection of CDC was the extent of the data
offered as an end product. First and foremost, after the study was completed,
CDC would provide each city with an evaluation report ranking their specific
comparable employees based on a arable worth scale. In addition the MAMA cities would
p
receive a composite benchmark study which would provide evaluations throughout
the metro area for those jobs which were similar. An example would be that a
city would be given a relative point value for the position of patrol officer
within its own organization, and would also have 'the data to compare that point
value to a metropolitan average and to specific patrol positions in neighboring
cities. This was felt to be a tremendous labor relation - personnel tool for all
cities and something beyond what we thought we would receive from the comparable
worth study.
Another very attractive feature of the CDC proposal was its ability to be
updated. Once the initial study was completed and in place, the system would be
able to provide, at a very nominal cost, adjustments over the years. For
example, if a city created a new position or added responsibilities to an
existing job, a new questionnaire could be filled out and submitted to CDC
outlining the tasks that position would perform. CDC Business Advisors would
recompute the job evaluation rankings for that city and provide a new point
value for the position.
-3-
.
Their estimate of what it would cost to re- evaluate a specific position or
incorporate `a new one into the city, was $5 to $l per occurrence. The other two
proposals did not offer such a capability.
Finally, a word about the conceptual framework of the CDC proposal. Their job
evaluation study is one that is referred to as a task evaluation approach as
opposed to a whole job evaluation approach which was proposed by the other two
firms'. In a task evaluation, jobs are broken down into many small functional
tasks and those tasks are rated and a point total derived. A specific job and
its relative worth compared to other jobs in an organization is determined by
the total of its task values. In the whole job evaluation approach, the job,
not individual tasks, is rated on its relative worth in various categories.
With this method, certain jobs may have an inherent bias due to preconceived
ideas about their complexity or difficulty. An example might be an evaluation
of a bomb disposal officer. Most people's initial reaction is that the job is
-worth a great deal because of the element of danger involved. When you evaluate
the job on a "whole job basis, that danger factor tends to expand into all the
areas that you may be using to rank the worth of the job. In fact, the danger
in bomb disposal work may be present only once in a great while, and the
majority of the job may be very routine and non - dangerous. The task approach
eliminates this type of halo effect because each separate function is evaluated.
In our example, the bomb disposal officer would be given fairly high points for
certain tasks like the diffusion of a bomb, but may receive routine marks for
other tasks associated with the work he or she would p The net result is
to provide a more accurate point total for all jobs surveyed.
For the reasons listed above, the committee felt unanimously that the CDC propo-
sal offered
COST OF THE PROPOSAL
Many cities have called requesting to know the estimated cost per city of the
CDC system prior to the December 4 meeting. At this time, it is not possible to
give exact dollar amounts. Obviously the total cost to each city will be depen-
dent to a large extent to how many cities select to cotinue with this joint
approach. Additionally, there are some other factors that will influence the
costa There is a possibility that quite a large number of out -state cities will
wish to use the comparable worth study that MAMA has developed. We estimate
that 30 additional cities may participate. If they do choose to join us, then
the cost per city could be reduced significantly due to the economies of scale
achieved by a larger group.
We have also been contacted by the Metropolitan Airport Commission, the
Minnesota Utility Association, and the city of Thief River Falls, Wisconsin.
They have all expressed some degree of interest in participating.
While a firm dollar amount is not possible to determine at this time, I can give
you -a range of the dollars we are talking about if we make some simple assump-
tions. If the 57 MAMA cities all agree to participate and the charges are based
on a formula which takes into account both a minimum value charged to each city,
and some factor for the number of employees, then the cost would likely range
from approximately $4,000 to cities the size of Osseo and Minnetrista, to an
-4-
amount somewhere around $15,000 for a city the size of Bloomington. If 25 to 30
outstate cities join in the study, the cost range would be lowered to $3,500 for
small cities up to about $12,500 for a city of size of Bloomington. `
CONCLUSION
We have asked that representatives of the 57 MAMA cities attend a meeting on
December 4 at 10:00 AM at the Brooklyn Center City Hall to provide us with a
decision as to their intent to participate or not with the MAMA study. We
realize that some cities will not be able to make firm committments due to the
fact that their councils may not meet before that date. It is my hope that with
the information provided you will be able to give us a good indication of what
your city intends to do. A similar meeting has been scheduled for members of
the Coalition of Outstate Cities on December 19 at 1:30 PM at the Golden Valley
City ,Hal l .
Those of us on the committee have spent many hours involved in this selection
process. We believe that CDC proposal represents the best option for us to meet
the requirements of State law and will provide us with a personnel and Tabor
relations tool which far exceeds what we expected to obtain through this pro-
cess.
We strongly recommend that member cities join in the study.
Metropolitan Area Management Association
Compensation Study
Process Summary
The lan for development and implementation of a FOCAS (Flexible
P P P
Occupational Analysis System) job analysis and evaluation system
for 25 benchmark jobs defined by the MAMA Committee and for
subsequent evaluation of MAMA member cities' non - benchmark jobs is
summarized below.
FOCAS is a questionnaire -based job analysis and evaluation
system. FOCAS has been developed to provide accurate and
comprehensive information about jobs to support effective human
resource management.
The first step in the process is to develop questionnaires to be
used to gather information about what employees do. We will use
one questionnaire for each occupational group. The MAMA Committee
will identify one subject matter expert and an advisory group from
each occupational group to work with Business Advisors. These
individuals will provide their job content expertise throughout
questionnaire development and job evaluation, and should be very
knowledgeable about jobs in their occupational area. Business
Advisors, together with a team of MAMA member cities' Personnel
Directors, will develop preliminary questionnaires based upon
existing job descriptions and the Business Advisors data bank of
task items. The Personnel Director team will identify and
schedule employee workshops to be conducted jointly with Business
Advisors, to modify preliminary questionnaires. Questionnaires
will be finalized with the advisory group for that occupational
area.
Second, Personnel Directors will schedule and conduct meetings
with employees for them to complete the questionnaire for their
occupational group. In filling out questionnaires, employees will
indicate for each task that they do or do not perform it and how
much time they spend on tasks performed relative to other tasks.
Third, Business Advisors will provide data entry from the
questionnaires and provide computer- generated position
descriptions for each employee who filled out a questionnaire.
This is a listing of tasks performed with time spent percentages.
The supervisor and employee will review.and verify or modify the
position description. The Personnel Director team will collect
and return all modified position descriptions to Business
Advisors. Business Advisors will provide data entry and return
revised position descriptions to the Personnel Director team for
distribution to supervisors /employees. These will serve:as final
position descriptions.
t
Fourth, Business Advisors will provide average, or benchmark, job
descriptions for the 25 benchmark jobs identified by the MAMA
committee. Personnel Directors will identify employees making up
the benchmark. Subject matter experts and advisory groups will
work with Business Advisors to finalize descriptions.
The fifth step in the process, task valuing, begins at the same
time as the second. Business Advisors will work with the
Personnel Director team, subject matter experts and advisory
groups to set up the task valuing process. The Personnel Director
team will identify and schedule managers for valuing meetings.
Business Advisors will conduct valuing meetings. In valuing
tasks, managers will rate all tasks about which they are
knowledgeably, according to one factor, complexity, importance or
unfavorability. Business Advisors will review average task values
with the subject matter expert and the advisory group to finalize
values. Factor weights will be statistically computed by Business
Advisors and finalized with the subject matter expert and advisory
group.
The sixth step is to combine results of the completed
questionnaires with task values to determine job value. Business
Advisors' computer analysis will compute job value by multiplying
time spent on tasks times task value and sum the products to
produce a point total.. Business Advisors will provide job values
for the twenty -five benchmark jobs to the MAMA committee.
Step seven is to collect and analyze wage and benefit data from
public and private sector labor markets. The MAMA committee will
identify available surveys and work with Business Advisors to
define appropriate markets and to determine if a specialized
salary survey is desirable. If so, Business Advisors will conduct
a specialized salary survey. Final job hierarchies will be
constructed based upon job values and market data.
The eighth step is to analyze relationships among job values,
current pay rates and market data. Business Advisors will provide
an analysis and alternative strategies for addressing pay
discrepancies.
Ninth, Business Advisors will provide individual job evaluation
points to the member cities.
Finally, Business Advisors will provide a report of methodology
and results and meet with the,MAMA committee to present the
report.
klall2141
CHAPTER 651— H.F. \'o. 1766
An act relating to local gorernmenr requiring every political subdivision to `` '
equitable compensation relationships among its employees permitting the toxn of tt Ma, -•
to have the powers of a metropolitan area town; proposing new taw coded in 1fv :r.:. .
Statutes, chapter 471, j
13E IT ENACTED Dl' TIIE LEGISLATURE OF TIIE STATE OF MINKES01
Section 1. [471.991] DEFINITIONS.
j Su bdivision L TERMS. For the purpose s of this act, the folio +u• - i
terms have the m caninrs i�en them.
-- _
Changes or additions are indicated by underlin deletions.by rtrikoom.
r t. G•1 ►.R�t�, n( \t{' ;. ^:l `,!tlA r,r 1`tPl
1897
`,ut,.1. 2
uhi::h t n tnrxr th rr, Y lu. tcrnt of III tn� rvtl crti arc• lwdc • :111d 110 nu,tc 111.+11 7t)
l,_•n f•nt of i_hc nn na 'cr" arc 11 na dct.
S.thcV. 3 C0111':�} ?,11ii.1: 1`'Oi?K �ALC'1; "C'ctrnh,tral,le ctrl v;duc_ _
ntexttti t'.. ;;iiuc of �c <trl: n ,,.•:r,urccl by the "Viil c (furl. rr'1xm tltthi)'_ and � nr} ant;
-- -- 1.
cctaoltt mti nc,rnt.,tiy tccl air? (l In the It rf ,ern tare of the V�ot.
-- __ - - _
Suhd. A. Ci.ActS. "C t� s'' rnt ns o,ne or more potiitionti that h tic similar
-- --
(l alt icy re"; thud and fc ncr �l ytt ahhc:a ncc e� ar }' act I ulc the ctuttcs.
�sith cc +t� hl I cuctn l,r,t cdures u,ed to rccrutt rutpl <tyecti and use of the
�arnr< co nh_:_n5 "chcdtule - --
Sub,]. 5. EQLI "I A13T,i; C01tPI:NSAT1ON REI.ATIONS11II'. "Fqui-
tat camp n rcl _ti jj ' mean_~ thin Liim try consul > rtirnt m n ouat
' :U reccmttn'ndin and apprucu g total comLntan is camPtra
c.t - - - -- litic
tn� - - - - - - -- - -- s «labia the Iia _
--- — -- t tlo •c c otiitiun
n
e c wo_rl; value in rel ation shi p to other e L ---.
i sub d i vision.
Subti. 6. hLlL:1I,Ii DO11LNATI:1) CLASS. "F fcmale'
_ _ the members ar
means ate class to whi 70 ,era cent or more of
SUM. 7. MALI l3O \TINATED CLASS. "Ma1c doi ?ti natcd class"
mean an class in which 30 pel rcent or more the the members are male.
Subd. 8. POSITION. " Position" me ans a croup of current duties and respons ibilities assigned or dc by a stfpervisor to an individual.
Sec. 2. [471.992] EQUITABLE COMPENSATION RELATION-
SHIPS.
Sub'ect to sections 179.61 to 179.76 but notwithsta any other la to
the contrary. ever p olitical su bdivision Of this ,late shall establish equitable
comtettsation relationship bettvecn rcntale- dominat male - dominated, an bal-
anced classes of em lo,'ces• In all interest arbitration held pu rsuant to sections
179.61 to 179.76, the a rbitrator shJtlt fati the ee uit t:tUlr co n:Pen`ati on relation -
sl ain standa estate lashed under sections 1 to 10. This section will become
effective August 1, 1987.
i
Sec. 3. [471.993] COMPENSATION RELATIONSIIIPS Or POSI-
t i TTONS.
1 Subdivisi 1. ASSURANCE OF REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP -
— _ _
Lt Crerari m atta�cn tet rt nen pe�sitions for compcn c taUli:hed
throt collect batgaim- u chaff 179 . and in eat r bh teat rec ommend
iti� an :u�prctrit�e co xL�i�it Luis for e•nt of political Subdivisions not
1 represen tbvv an exciu Vep .cntative under rh+lttcr 179 th te 1ecti"
1 p olitical su a t public rntpl,\er, as defin in se ction 179.63 su bdivi
1 f lion 4, or, trherc a „ref prialC, the tupcsota mt rit scstcm, ate 111 assure that.
s
i
tz C►tnagcs or additions tire, indicated by u nderline , deletions by tariL xwl.
i
r
189E LAWS of MINNESOTA for 1984 Ch ,
(I) enmTcnvation for positions in the c.lastiificd civil service, tutcl:r•,.:
civil s ervice, and mam hear re asonable rela tionship to one afw:i" .
L) compensation for positions bear reaso rela to sir
positi outside of that Lirlicular Llitic l su bdivision's employnacnt: ..
Q) compen for positions within the employer's work forc iti
reaso re lationship amonn re ob c lasses and anion various levels rani ;;
the same occupational group.
Subd. 2. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP DEFINED. For pairs,.
of subdivision 1, compe isation for po sitions bear "reasonable relationship" to !• r.e
another if: ___
U the c� for positions which require comparable skill, effort.
responsibility working conditions, and other relevant work related criteria is
comp rable; and
U the comEensation £or osip tions which require differing skill, effort.
responsib %�orkino conditions, and other relevant work related criteria r
proportional to the skill, effort, responsibility, working conditions, and other
relevant work related criteria requ ired.
Sec. 4. [471.994] JOB EVALUATION SYSTEM.
Ever political su bdivision shalt use a j2b evaluation system in order to
determine the comparable work value. The olp itical subdivision may use t he
systean of some other up hlic employer in the state. E ach olp itical subdivisio
shall meet and confer with the exclu representatives of their employees on the
development or selection of a job evaluation system.
y
Sec. 5. [471.995] REPORT AVAILABILITY.
Notwithstanding section 13.37, every olp itical subdivision shall submit a
repor containin g the results of the evahration system to the exclusi
representatives of their employees to be used by both ap roes in contract
negotiations. At a minimum, the report to each exclusive representative sh
identify the female- d classes in the po litical subdivision for whic -
compensation ine ui y exists, based o n the com .ap r:able work value, and all dam
not on individuals used to support these findings.
Sec. 6. [471.996] PRIVATE DATA.
Except as provided in section 5, th e results of any job evaluation system
established under s ection 4 and t he reports co led under section 5 sh all be
considered personnel data as define in section 13.43 subdivision 1, and trea
as p rivate LInder s ection 13.43, subdivisions 4 and 5, until Jul 31, . 1a�1•
The director of med iation servic is a uthorized to release the !e valuatio n
syste results and reports to labor orc.a nizations as provided under section 13.43
subdivision 6. — —
Changes or additions are indicated by underli deletions by strileetat.
r t; r.Cl I AWE , -1 NIIN ",t SUTA I;,r Voi I It:v9
Sce. 7; [471.9Wil I:1HAA ON U'hI13:R I., 1'
tir3tt';ith.t:nt,ftnr rT,;,j,t..r 179 or c,th,•r Li%v t„ Il,c• contr:,rv, it is not an
unfair I ,t,or pt ,c ti, c, to :,ll „ra e a tin<•c tlirJ antn,utt of folic!, tit ht• u`c•d srtlely to
coo- t t r >quit ,t;{ , ot'.j cm.,,tton rri:,tt,,n.hif,�_
Sec. 8. [471997] ll' \fA\ RIGI ES ACT EXCEPTION.
Neither the commis of Inman ri nor any st cou shall uw or
comider !h_ r,.sul,ti of any j ,h 0 ,Iwtlion Ondrr section 4 and
th _ rc.orts eolli t._cI under s ction 5 in wl 1:_c;ccc,i,nr, or ac c
alle i:i� discrimination t_Jore Atwu%t i 19,"17, under chapter 363.
Sec. 9. [471,9975] SUITS BARPED.
No ca or ac antics h�fore Au,t 1, 1987 for failure
re to co with
r the req of this act. -- -- J — — - —
Sec. 10. [471.99&] REPORT TO CONIMISSIO's;ER.
Subdivision I. REPORT ON INIYI,E \IENTA,TION PLAN; CON-
--,__
TENTS F.very (itie.al subdivision shall re port to the co mmission er - of em ploy
cc rela by October 1, 19'! on its plan for im lemcn of sections 4 and
S. Each report shall include: — — — - —
the title of each tab class which the olp itical subdivision has estab-
l isped;
the followinn information for each class as of July 1, 1984:
the number of incumb — _— — —
the per centage of incumbents who are femal
the com work val of the class, as determined under the
s •stem chosen under section 4; and — — — — —
the mi nimum and maximum monthly salary for the class,
3) a description of the •ddb evalu ation system used by the political
subdivision; and — — -- - —
L t Elan for esta blishin c Ig nitable com eta is ti relationsh betFVCen
female - dominated and male- dominated classes, includinr_
identification of classes for which a _compensation ine uitN exists based
on the conarablc work valor,
a timetable for im plementatio n of ray a tq tit%- and
�c) the esti cost of im plementation.
Changes or, additions are indicated by underline deletions by wil txxtt,
19iX) LAWS of MINNESOTA for 1984 Ch. (,�1
Suhd. 2, Ti•:Ci1NiCAL ASSISTANCE. The cornyn ssioner of en1ihi }
relations .01A], upon request of a pol itical suhdivision, provide tec hnical assistanc
in comPlctill the rcdnircci e )rts. A_ --
Sec. 11. [471.999] 121?I'ORT TO LEGISLATURE.
The commiss of emplovee relations shall report to the feeislatu bN
Jan 1, ]98G on the inform dithered from political subdiv Th e
comrnissin report shall includ a list of p olitical subdivisions which did not
comply with the reporti requ irements of this section.
Sec. 12. TOWN OF WINDEMERE; POWERS.
The town of Windemere in Pine County may exercise the power s of a
town provided by Mi nnesota Stat utes, section 368.01, and other laws referring to
section 368.01, except section 340.11, subdivision 10b.
Sec. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 12 is effecti if it is approved by the electors of the town at the
annual town meeting, the day after compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section
645.021, subdivision 3.
Approved May 2, 1984
CHAPTER 652 — H.F.No. 1761
An act relating to taxation; releasing certain counties from the requirement to impose
an aggregate removal tax; adding other counties; providing an exception to the tax for
Benton and Steams counties; amending Minnesota Statutes 1983 Supplement, section
298.75, subdivision L
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1983 Supplement, section 298.75, subdivi-
sion 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. DEFINITIONS. Except as may otherwise be provided.
the following words, when used in this section, shall have the meanings herein
ascribed to them.
(1) "Aggregate material" shall mean nonmetallic natural mineral aggre-
gate including, but not limited to sand, silica sand,.gravel, building stone, crushed
rock, limestone, and granite. Aggregate material shall not include dimension
stone and dimension granite.
Changes or additions are indicated by underline deletions by str+keew.
0111DED
G
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on December 3, 1984
CHRISTMAS TREE SALES LOT 4—
win Cities Youth for Christ Daytons Home Store bA W
City Clerk {
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Bilr's Vending Service 7317 W. Broadway
Brooklyn Center Getty 6245 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooks Superette 6800 Humboldt Ave. N.
Budgeter 6415 James Circle
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd,
Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Ave. N.
Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd.
Red Owl Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Super America 6545 W. River Rd.
Super America 1901 57th Ave. N.
Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave S.
Chuck Muer's 2101 Freeway Blvd.
T. Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Thrifty Scot 6545 James Circle
Bill West 76 2000 57th Ave. N.
Twin City Novelty 9549 Penn 'Ave. S.
Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave N.
Woodside Enterprises 2500 Nathan Lane k
Baker's Square 5601 Xerxes Ave. N. A_
City Clerk
COMMERCIAL KENNEL LICENSE
Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center
Sanitarian (PEI
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE
Brooklyn Center City Garage 6844 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center Getty 6245 Brooklyn Blvd
Brooklyn Center Post Office 6848 Lee Ave. N.
Christy's`Auto Service 5300 Dupont Ave. N.
Federal Lumber 4810 N. Lilac Dr,
Howe, Inc. 4821 Xerxes Ave. N.
Humboldt Avenue Service 6840 Humboldt Ave. N.
Inter City Oil 6300 Brooklyn Blvd.
Super America 6545 W. River. Rd.
Super America 1901 57th Ave. N.
Uncle Bob's Quik Six 6600 Lyndale Ave.
Wes' Standard Service 6044 Brooklyn Blvd ^�
Bill West Service Center 2000 57th Ave. N. _
City Clerk
LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
W
ol.iday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
arc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle
Riverside Motel 5608 Lyndale Ave. N.
Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle
Sanitarian
POOL TABLE LICE (�
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Ci Clerk
Y
PUBLIC LICENSE
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. c X A JD �-AT"
City Clerk
SINGHANGERS LICENSE
Kaufman Sign Co. 315 N. Washington Ou I \t
Buildi Official;
SWIMMING POOL LICENSE
European Health Spa 2920 County Road 10 '
unitarian
TAXI CAB LICENSE
Yellow Cab 127 1st Ave N. - Z
Chj(e9xof Police V '
General Approval:
Gerald G. SplinteV City Clerk