HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 06-24 CCP Regular Session 131#
cv e
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JUNE 24, 1985
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests,
in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
*6. Approval of Minutes - June 3, 1985 - Board of Equalization
June 3, 1985 - Special Session
*7. Approval of Minutes - June 10, 1985 - Regular Session
8. Presentation of Community Service Award to Vincent Tubman
9. Presentation of Community Service Award to William Hannay
10. Award Presentation - Conference of Mayor's Award for Youth Activities
Emphasizing Public- Private Partnership
11. Performance Bond Release:
*a. Car X Muffler Shop, 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard
*b. Rosemary Terrace, Humboldt Place
- Located on the 6700 block on the west side of Humboldt Avenue North
12. Resolutions:
*a. Authorizing the Submission of an Amendment to the City of Brooklyn
Center Community Development Program for Years IX and X to Hennepin
County for a Consideration as Part of the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program, in Accordance with the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as Amended
*b. Appointing Geralyn Barone to the Board of Directors of the Northwest
Hennepin Human Services Council
Geralyn Barone will be replacing Tom Bublitz who formerly served on
this Board of Directors.
*c. Accepting Work Under City Hall /Community Center Landscaping Project
No. 1984 -12, Phase III
-This project provided for completion of landscaping improvements at
the complex' upper plaza.
COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 24, 1985
*d. Accepting Work Under Shingle Creek Trailway Landscaping Project No.
1984 -15
-This project provided for installation of landscape plantings along
Shingle Creek from I -94 to 69th Avenue North.
*e. Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Seal Coating Improvement
Project No. 1985 -15, Approving Specifications and Ordering
Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -H)
-This project provides for the annual street seal coating program, as
included in the 1985 Public Works Department budget.
*f. Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for
Bids, Dallas Road Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12, Wingard
Lane Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13, and 65th Avenue North
Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14 (Contract 1985)
- Construction of these ro'ects were ordered b the City Council
p J Y Y ,
following public hearings held on June 10, 1985.
g. Receiving Engineer's Report, Establishing Municipal Service Garage
Improvement Project No. 1985 -21, Approving Specifications and
Ordering Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1985 -L)
-This project provides for the replacement of the existing fuel tanks
at the Municipal Garage with reconditioned tanks salvaged from the
old 7- Eleven site at 69th and Humboldt.
*h. Establishing Parking Restrictions for Xerxes Avenue North Between
C.S.A.H. 10 and 170 Feet South of 59th Avenue North and 200 Feet
North of 65th Avenue North to Bridge No. 27927 Over F.A.I. 94.
*i. Establishing Caulking /Sealant Improvement Project No. 1985 -22 and
Accepting Proposal for Completion Thereof
j. Imdemnifying the State of Minnesota From Any Claims Resulting From
the Issuance of a Variance From Established Street Width Standards as
They Relate to Xerxes Avenue North From Northway Drive to F.A.I. 94
-This resolution acknowledges receipt of administrative variance from
MN /DOT to allow for the improvement of Xerxes Avenue North. Its
passage holds MN /DOT harmless of any future claim that might arise as
a result of the variance approved.
13. Ordinance:
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 on Filing for Municipal Office
-This ordinance is offered for a first reading because of a new State
law requiring the preparation and delivery of absentee ballots at
least 30 days before an election, and requiring filing of affidavits
of candidates not less than 6 weeks nor more than 8 weeks before a
municipal primary and at least 18 weeks before the general election.
COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 24, 1985
14. Public Hearings:
a. Private Kennel License Application (7:30 p.m.)
- Applicant Carolyn E. Duerr of 6900 Regent Avenue North has applied
for a private kennel license to keep three dogs at the residence at
6900 Regent Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. The applicant has
indicated that the dogs will be housed inside the residence at 6900
Regent Avenue North. The City ordinance requires private kennel
license where more than two dogs, exceeding six months of age, are
kept in a household.
b. Proposed Municipal Golf Course (8:00 p.m.)
1. Resolution of Appropriation, Loan Authorization and Establishing
Golf Course Enterprise Fund
2. Resolution Establishing Municipal Golf Course Improvement Project
No. 1985 -23 and Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Enter
Into an Agreement With Brauer & Associates, Limited for the
Design of Said Improvement
15. Planning Commission Items: (8:30 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 85015 submitted by S & G
Properties for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots
the tract of land on which the Earle Brown Farm Apartments is located
at 1701 69th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 85015 at its June 13, 1985 meeting.
b. Planning Commission Application No. 85016 submitted by Village
Properties for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow a temporary 1' setback off Highway 252 right -of -way and to
allow a density variance of two units at the Evergreen Park
Apartments, 7200 -7224 Camden Avenue North. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of Application No. 85016 at its June 13, 1985
meeting.
16. Consideration of Specified Licenses:
a. Application for On -Sale 3.2 beer license for the 50's Grill. The
restaurant will be located at 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard, formerly
Farrell's Restaurant.
17. Discussion Items:
a. Staff recommendation for amendments to the City's policy for
deferment of special assessments
-Staff will be prepared to discuss possible changes to Resolution No.
78 -87.
b. Scheduling of City Council Meetings
-Staff will be prepared to discuss the possibility of changing the
meeting nights of the City Council.
*18. Authorize City Manager and Mayor to sign revised Joint Powers Agreement
on Senior Transportation Project
*19. Licenses
20. 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
Board of Equalization
June 3, 1985
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called to
order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Assessor Peter Koole,
Property Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi, Assessing Clerks Grace Geske and Julie Caswell,
and Administrative Assistant Geralyn Barone.
PURPOSE OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
The City Manager reviewed the purpose of the Board of Equalization meeting and
pointed out that the City Council was serving as the Board of Equalization to conduct
a review of assessed valuation within the City, and to allow time for public inquiry
regarding local assessments after the City Assessor makes his report.
The City Manager introduced Peter Koole, City Assessor, who pointed out that there
are various steps that individuals must take when seeking adjustments in their
valuations and he explained that the meeting tonight is the first step, after which
the inquiry is passed on to the County, and the County then passes it on to the State
for their review. He explained that the values discussed this evening will serve as
the basis for 1986 taxes. He added that the Board of Equalization reviews the City
Assessor's work and he explained that the City appraisers are fully certified by the
State of Minnesota. He explained that the Assessor's responsibility is to treat
the value of similar properties in similar ways with regard to valuations. He also
noted that this year the Assessor's office has asked that people call his office
prior to the Board of Equalization meeting to make an appointment with the staff to
discuss their particular request, and also, if necessary, to register for an
appearance at the Board of Equalization. He explained that the people who are pre-
registered would be handled first at this evening's meeting.
PROCEDURAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY TAXATION
The City Assessor explained the appeal process, stating the channel of appeal begins
with the local Board, then onto the County Board, the State Board, and finally to the
Tax Court if carried that far. He added that an individual must go to the Local
Board first before they can qualify for the next step, which is the County Board, and
that an individual must also appeal to the County Board prior to appealing to the
State Board. The City Assessor then explained that the County Board of
Equalization is appointed by the County Commissioners and the Commissioner of
Revenue serves as the State Board of Equalization.
The City Assessor presented a slide show entitled "Property Assessment" prepared by
the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Minnesota, copyright 1984.
THE CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT
The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He explained that the
6 -3 -85 -1-
sales ratio study is a substantive part of what is done by the Assessing Department.
He briefly reviewed the 1985 sales ratio study noting the aggregate ratio is 92.4 %,
the median ratio is 92.2 %, and the coefficient of dispersion is 5.2 %. He then
briefly discussed the definition of the coefficient of dispersion. He stated that
the average sale price of a home in Brooklyn Center is $68,931 and the average market
value is $63,668. He also explained the Assessing Department analyzes the sales by
style, location, price, age, and neighborhood. He reviewed the valuations of
several homes located in different parts of the City, including homes located on a
lake or river, in proximity to a highway or freeway, commercial and multiple family
units, and homes located near parkland. He reviewed the Assessor's valuation and
property taxes since 1976, noting the value of property in a low price range has
increased 98.9% since 1976, while the tax burden has decreased by 6.4 %. He added
the value of property in a higher price range has increased 72.0% since 1976, while
the tax burden has risen by 11.0% in that time period. Reviewing a graph of average
property taxes in the last ten years, the City Assessor pointed out that the lower
valued properties are on the receiving end of tax relief. He then reviewed 1985
market values as compared to 1984, noting the average value of residential homes is
slightly lower for 1985. He emphasized that although sales prices have been flat,
volume of sales is high.
Councilmember Theis asked if the values presented were overall values of
residences, and the City Assessor replied saying the total value of residences was
divided by the number of parcels.
The City Assessor commented that State law requires one - fourth of the properties in
the City be revalued and inspected each year. He stated that summer help would be
hired to assist in appraising the properties. He showed the Council on a map of the
City which areas had been revalued and inspected in 1984 for the 1985 assessment.
The City Assessor explained that normally he would discuss new legislative changes
affecting property valuation, but the legislature is still convening. He noted
that expectations were low for changes in the property tax system, and no action had
been taken on reform recommendations made to the Governor. He noted that a
legislative commission may form to conduct another study.
PUBLIC INQUIRY REGARDING LOCAL ASSESSMENTS
The City Manager explained that three notices had been received for this evening's
meeting. Two of the individuals had preregistered, Mir. William Shutte, regarding
the property at 6715, 6717, 6719, and 6721 Humboldt Avenue North, and MX. Steve
Anderson of the Gaughn Company regarding the Victoria Townhouses at 6740 -6861
Grimes Place. Also requesting to appear at this evening's meeting was Mr. Scott
Regan representing Osseo /Brooklyn Bus Garage at 4435 68th Avenue North.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. William Shutte, owner of four parcels between 6715 and
6721 Humboldt Avenue North. Mr. Shutte stated that he had received a letter from
the City Assessor requesting additional information on expenses and rents. Mir.
Shutte noted he had already completed information required by the Board of
Equalization at a previous meeting and by the City Assessor at a past conference with
him. Mr. Shutte inquired as to why the request for additional details was needed
when all previously stated requirements had been met. He informed the Board of
Equalization that he was appearing to request a reduction in the assessments of his
properties.
Mr. Shutte submitted and explained a letter prepared by him calculating his
6 -3 -85 -2-
interpretation of the market value. He stated that he still did not understand the
formula applied by the City Assessor in arriving at a market value. Mr. Shutte said
when he purchased the property, the taxes were one -half of what they are now. He
blamed the increase on the change in valuation.
The City Assessor referred the Board of Equalization to the report prepared for 6715
to 6721 Humboldt Avenue North, PID# 35- 119 -21 -11 -0007, 0008, 0009, and 0010. Fie
explained that five comparable small apartment building sales had taken place in
Brooklyn Center in 1983 and 1984, with sale prices ranging from $128,500 to
$168 000. The City Asses '
� y o stated the Assessor s 1985 market value was determined
by using an average gross rent multiplier of 7.64, and an average rent of $359 for two
bedroom units in four - plexes. The property value of $131,600 for each building was
adjusted to a market value of $121,600.
Councilmember Theis asked for clarification of the calculation of the Assessor's
1985 market value, and the City Assessor replied that the amount of the property
value was multiplied by the average sales ratio of 92.4% to arrive at the $121,600
market value.
Mr. Shutte commented that he did not understand the gross rent multiplier. He added
that his rents may be lower than those of buildings from recent sales.
Mayor Nyquist asked Mir. Shutte if a buyer looks at the lower rents when planning to
purchase a building. Mr. Shutte replied g pl ed that a buyer is much more likely to look at
Y Y
expenses, and a building is much easier to sell if expenses are met. Mayor Nyquist
asked if a potential buyer looks at income, and Mr. Schutte stated that a buyer
considers both income and expenses.
The City Assessor commented that very few cases exist where an investor does not
collect as much rent as possible, and he disagreed with Mr. Schutte's assumption
that current owners charge lower rates.
Mr. Shutte again asked for clarification of the gross rent multiplier, and the City
Assessor again explained it. The City Assessor noted that all factors considered
are reflected in rents, and that is why the gross rent multiplier is used.
Councilmember Theis asked if the gross rent multiplier was calculated based on 100%
occupancy, and the City Assessor replied affirmatively. Councilmember Theis noted
that if the average sale price is $140,000, in fact the buildings in question may be
undervalued at the original assessed market value of $126,500. The City Assessor
replied saying this could be possible, and the owner was given the benefit of doubt
in this case. He stated that the most conservative approach had been followed.
Councilmember Theis commented that based on the average sales values, he would have
problems with diverting from the City Assessor's recommendation.
The City Manager noted that all properties had been appraised over the last year and
some increases may have occurred.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
accept the City Assessor's recommendation to reduce the 1985 estimated market value
on the properties located at 6715, 6717, 6719, and 6721 Humboldt Avenue North, PID/J
• 35- 119 -21 -11 -0007 through 0010, from $126,500 to $121,600. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Couneilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
6 -3 -85 -3-
Mr. Schutte asked if he should continue providing information as he had in the past,
and the City Assessor replied that information as requested by the Assessor's office
should be completed.
The City Manager introduced the next appeal, which was from Mr. Steve Anderson who
was representing Gaughn Company and appealing the valuation of Victoria Townhouses,
6740 to 6861 Grimes Place.
Mr. Anderson stated that the increase in assessed values was inconsistent with the
increase in gross rents.
Councilmember Lhotka asked why the income approach to valuing the property was used,
and the City Assessor replied that when the information is available, the income
approach is used. He added that in this case, the information provided was detailed
enough to use the income approach. He noted that some variations will occur with
the different approaches, and the income approach provided the lowest value.
Mr. Anderson asked the City Assessor to explain why other cities arrive at lower
assessments. The City Assessor responded saying he does not know what method other
cities use, and he has no control over their valuation practices.
Councilmember Theis asked how the gross rent multiplier was determined without a
rental figure for comparable sales. The City Assessor said the rental numbers were
supplied to him, by a data exchange, and they were available for review if needed.
Mr. Anderson inquired whether any of the housing units reviewed for comparable sales
were low income projects. The City Assessor said he was not aware if they were or
not. Mr. Anderson stated that any excess cash flow must be returned to HUD.
Therefore, it was Mr. Anderson's opinion that a valid comparison could not be made.
Councilmember Theis asked how the original 1985 market value of $1,729, was
determined and the City Assessor explained. The City Manager noted that when a
detailed appraisal is made, the value may increase, as it did in this case.
Councilmember Theis and the City Assessor discussed various methods of valuation.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
adjust the Assessor's 1985 market value on the property located at 6740 -6861 Grimes
Place, PID# 34- 119 -21 -21 -0026 from $1,729,400 to $1,850,000. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced the next appeal, which was from Mr. Scott Regan who was
representing Osseo /Brooklyn Bus Garage and appealing the valuation of the property
at 4435 -68th Avenue North.
Mr. Regan stated he was appearing before the Board of Equalization this evening
because of a 21% increase in market value of the property from 1984 to 1985. He
explained the uses of the building, stating no improvements have been made since the
purchase.
The City Assessor commented that he had reviewed this case earlier and was not aware
that Mr. Regan had planned to appear. He reviewed the characteristics of the
property in question, emphasizing the under - improvement of land. He stated that
the Assessor's office had been conservative in arriving at their valuation.
6 -3 -85 -4-
Mr. Regan noted that the building must be located within the school district to
accommodate the schools, and the property was one of the few pieces of property
available at the time of purchase. He added that the building meets all of the
City's requirements.
Councilmember Theis and the City Assessor reviewed the valuations of the property
and the building. The City Assessor commented that he did not feel the market value
was excessive.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
adjust the Assessor's 1985 market value downward by 5% on the property located at
4435 -68th Avenue North, PID# 34- 119 -21 -22 -0012 from $702,500 to $667,300. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Assessor next reviewed the nonpersonal appeals received by the Assessing
Department. He reviewed the following list and recommendations for Council
members:
Case #
1. Kensington Inv. Co. 6540 Shingle Creek Parkway
PID# 35- 119 -21 -14 -0007
1985 EMN - $731,800
Recommendation: $731,800
2. Edstrom Realty
PID# 03- 118 -21 -22 -0025 4500 -58th Ave. N. 1985 EMV- $6,700,000
PID# 03- 118 -21 -22 -0027 4539 58th Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 300,000
Recommendation: Same as 1985 ENV
3. France Avenue Investments 5001 France Avenue North
PID# 10- 118 -21 -24 -0002
1985 EMV - $1,753,600
Recommendation: $1,753,600
4. Chippewa Park Inv. Group
PID# 36- 119 -21 -31 -0045 6305 Camden Ave. N. 1985 EMV- $4,874,200
PID/k 36- 119 -21 -24 -0046 6507 Camden Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 208,000
Recommendation: Same as 1985 ENV
5. George Kosnites
PIEW 36- 119 -21 -42 -0007 201 -65th Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
PIEW 36- 119 -21 -42 -0008 207 -65th Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
PID/t 36- 119 -21 -42 -0009 215 -65th Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
PID/t 36- 119 -21 -42 -0010 6425 Willow Lane 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
PID/t 36- 119 -21 -42 -0011 6417 Willow Lane 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
PID# 36- 119 -21 -42 -0012 6409 Willow Lane 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
PID# 36- 119 -21 -42 -0013 6401 Willow Lane 1985 EMV -$ 248,900
. Recommendation: Same as 1985 ENV
6 -3 -85 -5-
6. Trans America Partners •
PIDIt 02- 118 -21 -13 -0024 5715 Morgan and
5712 -48 Morgan 1985 EMV -$ 836,700
PID# 02- 118 -21 -13 -0025 Parking Lot 1985 EMV -$ 95,200
PID# 02- 118 -21 -13 -0026 5710 Morgan 1985 EMV -$ 316,200
PID# 02- 118 -21 -13 -0027 2000 -57th Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 110,900
PIDW 02- 118 -21 -13 -0028 1912 -57th Ave. N. 1985 EMV -$ 140,200
Recommendation: Same as 1985 EMV
7. Allied Central Stores 1200 Brookdale
PIDIt 02- 118 -21 -32 -0004
1985 EMV - $5,394,400
Recommendation: $5,394,400
8. Gary D. Lyons 6807 -13 -19 Humboldt Ave.
PIDIt 35- 119 -21 -11 -0006
1985 EMV - $814,800
Recommendation: $814,800
9. Lowell Zitzloff 4321 -23 - 68th Avenue North
PID# 34- 119 -21 -22 -0011
1985 EMV - $226,200
Recommendation: $226,200
10. Twin City Federal 2950 County Road 10
PID/f 03- 118 -21 -14 -0018
1985 EMV - $387,200
Recommendation: $387,200
11. Morton P. Barron 4315 -68th Avenue North
PID4t 34- 119 -21 -22 -0010
1985 EMV - $160,500
Recommendation: $160,500
12. Midwest Federal 5545 Xerxes Avenue North
PIDYt 03- 118 -21 -41 -0022
1985 EMV - $444,200
Recommendation: $444,200
13. Cigna Real Estate Funds 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway
PID# 35- 119 -21 -43 -0007
1985 EMV - $8,556,300
Recommendation: $8,556,300
6 -3 -85 -6-
14. Northwestern National Life Ins. 2810 County Road 10
PID# 02- 118 -21 -23 -0016
1985 EXV - $2,956,700
Recommendation: $2,956,700
15. Brutger Companies, Inc. 6201 Lilac Drive N.
1985 EMT
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0091 Unit #101 T58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0092 Unit #102 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0093 Unit #103 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0094 Unit #104 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0095 Unit #105 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0096 Unit #106 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0097 Unit #107 $62,000
PID# 36- 119- 21- 33 -oo98 Unit #108 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0099 Unit #109 $51,700
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0100 Unit #112 $48,700
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0101 Unit #113 $58,400
PIS 36- 119 -21 -33 -0102 Unit #114 $60,200
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0103 Unit #115 $60,200
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0104 Unit #201 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0105 Unit #202 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0106 Unit #203 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0107 Unit #204 $62,000
PIS 36- 119 -21 -33 -0108 Unit #205 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0109 Unit #206 $62,000
PIN 36- 119 -21 -33 -0111 Unit #208 $62,000
PIS 36- 119 -21 -33 -0112 Unit #209 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0113 Unit #210 $62,000
PIT 36- 119 -21 -33 -0115 Unit #212 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0116 Unit #213 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0117 Unit #214 $60,200
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0118 Unit #215 $60,200
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0119 Unit #301 $58,400
PIN 36- 119 -21 -33 -0120 Unit #302 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0121 Unit #303 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0122 Unit #304 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0123 Unit #305 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0124 Unit #306 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0125 Unit #307 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0126 Unit #308 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0127 Unit #309 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0128 Unit #310 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0130 Unit #312 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0131 Unit #313 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0132 Unit #314 $60,200
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0134 Unit #401 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0135 Unit #402 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0136 Unit #403 $62,000
6 -3 -85 -
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0137 Unit #404 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0138 Unit #405 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0139 Unit #406 $62,000
PID/t 36- 119 -21 -33 -0140 Unit #407 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0141 Unit #408 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0142 Unit #409 $62,000
PIDfk 36- 119 -21 -33 -0143 Unit #410 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0144 Unit #411 $62,000
PIDWt 36- 119 -21 -33 -0145 Unit #412 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0146 Unit #413 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0147 Unit #414 $60,200
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0148 Unit #415 $60,200
PID/t 36- 119 -21 -33 -0149 Unit #501 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0150 Unit #502 $62,000
PIDIf 36- 119 -21 -33 -0151 Unit #503 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0153 Unit #505 $62,000
PIDff 36- 119 -21 -33 -0154 Unit #506 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0155 Unit #507 $62,000
PIDIt 36- 119 -21 -33 -0157 Unit #509 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0159 Unit #511 $62,000
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0160 Unit #512 $58,400
KIV 36- 119 -21 -33 -0161 Unit #513 $58,400
PID# 36- 119 -21 -33 -0162 Unit #514 $60,200
Recommendation: Same as 1985 ENiV
16. Jim Bern Co. 700 -890 - 66th Ave. N.
PID# 36- 119 -21 -24 -0047
1985 EMV - $2,600,000
Recommendation: $2,600,000
17. Plitt Theatres 2501 County Road 10
PIDIt 02- 118 -21 -24 -0013
1985 EMV - $761,500
Recommendation: $761,500
18. Robert H. Bradley
PIE# 35- 119 -21 -44 -0003 6120 Earle Brown Drive $4,500,000
PID/t 02- 118 -21 -11 -0002 6040 Earle Brown Drive $1,850,000
PID# 35- 119 -21 -11 -0012 1600 -67th Avenue North $2,500,000
PIEW 35- 119 -21 -12 -0003 6800 Shingle Crk. Pkwy $2,750,000
PID# 35- 119 -21 -44 -0002 Vacant Land $ 428,800
Recommendation: Same as 1985 EMV
19. M & E Realty Co. 6215 Brooklyn Blvd.
PID# 34- 119 -21 -43 -0006
1985 E1"IV - $550,900
Recommendation: $550,900
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
6-3-85 -8-
8
concur with the staff recommendations regarding the nonpersonal appeals. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion pissed unanimously.
The City Assessor reviewed a nonpersonal appeal by Dale M. Stone, 5500 Bryant Avenue
North, PID# 01- 118 -21 -31 -0061, with a 1985 market value of $186,900. The City
Assessor recommended a decrease in the market value to $165,000.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
accept the City Assessor's recommended 1985 market value of $165,000. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
adjourn the Board of Equalization meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously. The Board of Equalization adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
6 -3 -85 -9-
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
SPECIAL SESSION
JUNE 3, 1985
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The City Council met in special session at 8:36 p.m. following the Board of
Equalization meeting.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Also present were
City Manager Gerald Splinter, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, and Deputy City
Clerk Geralyn Barone.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -85
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIAS
FOR XERXES AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -09 (CONTRACT 1985 -G)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -86
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING JUST COMPENSATION AND AUTHORIZING OFFERS TO ACQUIRE THE
EARLE BROWN FARM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes.
Councilmember Lhotka recommended that item 5 in the resolution be deleted.
Upon vote being taken on Resolution No. 85 -86, the following voted in favor thereof:
none; and the following voted against the same: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia
Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. The motion failed._
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
amend Resolution No. 85 -86 by deleting item 5. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
6 -3 -85 -1-
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 8:41 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
6• -3 -85 -2-
3
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
JUNE 10, 1985
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also
present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp,
Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Engineer Jim Grube, City Attorney
Richard Schieffer, Housing Coordinator Brad Hoffman, Deputy City Clerk Geralyn
Barone.
Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Lhotka was out of town and was excused from
this evening's meeting.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Mayor Dean Nyquist.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum
session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who
wished to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular
agenda items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from the
Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested that items 8, 9i, and 9j be removed
from the Consent Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 20, 1985
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of May 20, 1985 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -87
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF MARY REBECCA VONDERHARR
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
6 -10 -85 -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -88
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF BILL DONELSON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -91
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ONE ( 1 ) 14 FOOT ALUMINUM STEP VAN
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -94
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1984 -B (LIFT STATION
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -09, PHASE I)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -97
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
SHORT - ELLIOTT- HENDRICKSON, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS ON
SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT JOHN MARTIN DRIVE AND AT SUMMIT DRIVE
Themotion for the adoption of the n b
p e foregoing resolution was duly seconded y member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -98
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE DESIGN OF A WATER UTILITY CONTROL
SYSTEM
6 -10 -85 -2-
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the following list of licenses:
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR
Snyder Brothers _ Brookdale Shopping Ctr.
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR
B & K Music & Vending 3420 Nicollet Ave. S.
Carousel International P.O. Box 307
Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicollet Ave. S.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 2206 Brookview Dr.
Chuck Muer's 2101 Freeway Blvd.
Interstate United 1091 Pierce Butler Rte.
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.
K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr.
Num. Num Foods Brookdale Center
Service Systems 701 Decatur
Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Video Review 5810 Xerxes Ave. N.
GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE
erg gstrom Trucking 5860 73rd Ave. N.
Block Sanitation 6741 79th Ave. N.
Mengelkoch Co. 119 NE 14th Street
Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 26
Robbinsdale Transfer Co., Inc. 5232 Hanson Court
Woodlake Sanitary Service 4000 Hamel Road
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
T.G.S. Mechanical 50 Choctaw Circle
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Riviera Tanning Studio 6040 Earle Br. Dr.
SIGNHANGER LICENSE
Crosstown Sign Co. 10166 Central Ave. NE
SWIMMING POOL LICENSE
Chippewa Park Investment Group 6507 Camden Ave. N.
6 -10 -85 -3-
TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center Jaycees 7254 Dupont Ave. N
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
FINAL APPROVAL OF 7100 CORPORATE PLAZA
Councilmember Hawes asked if the City Attorney had approved this item. The City
Attorney stated that approval had not yet been granted, but would be when an abstract
was received. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by
Councilmember Theis to approve the final plat of 7100 Corporate Plaza which provides
for the combination of the various parcels which comprised the former City Hall site
along Brooklyn Boulevard. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -89
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing the Date for a Public Hearing
on a Proposed Housing Program at Brookwood Condominiums.
Councilmember Hawes referred to the second paragraph of the resolution, questioning
the timing of the public hearing. The Housing Coordinator noted that the date of
the public hearing was correct, but the wording of the resolution should state that
notice of the public hearing should be published no less than 15 days or more than 30
days prior to the date of the hearing.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -90
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED HOUSING PROGRAM
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
THEREFOR
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, 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 the Execution of a Joint Powers
Agreement with the City of Crystal.
6 -10 -85 -4-
Councilmember Theis asked what the possibility would be of future reciprocation
with the City of Crystal. The City Manager responded that the possibility exists in
the future, but there may never be a time when the City of Brooklyn Center would need
something. Councilmember Theis agreed with the City Manager.
Mayor Nyquist asked if Brooklyn Center would be associated with the City of Crystal
if Crystal defaulted. The City Manager said that Brooklyn Center would not be
named.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -92
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF
CRYSTAL
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, 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 Housing Coordinator left the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the
Contingency Fund to the Playground Program. He stated that contingency funds would
be needed because of the difficulty in changing the programs at this time.
Councilmember Scott asked if the employees are placed through the Tree Trust
Program. The City Manager responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Theis asked if the employees were paid with Brooklyn Center payroll
checks.
The Housing Coordinator returned to the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
The Housing Coordinator responded to Councilmember Theis' inquiry, stating the
employees are paid directly through the Tree Trust Program, a corporation that has a
contract with Hennepin County. He stated the employees are paid every two weeks and
the checks are delivered to the City.
Councilmember Theis asked if the City would be involved in funding until the
legislature acts. The City Manager responded affirmatively.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -93
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO THE
PLAYGROUND PROGRAM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
6 -10 -85 -5-
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing West Palmer Lake Trail
Improvement Project No. 1985 -18 and Accepting Proposal for Construction Thereof.
Councilmember Hawes commented that the cost involved for this project seemed like a
lot of money for a short stretch of blacktop, and asked if there was fabric underlay
planned for this project. The City Engineer stated that there would be a fabric
underlay in addition to a gravel base and a granular subgrade. Councilmember Hawes
asked how long the trail connection would be, and the City Engineer responded saying
it would be 280' long. The City Engineer added that the price of this project was
comparable to the amount paid one and one -half years ago for the Evergreen Park area
and the Lions Park area improvement projects. Councilmember Hawes asked if a
request had been received for this improvement project, and the City Engineer
responded saying over the last two seasons a need had developed because of the number
of people short cutting through the ball fields. The City Manager noted that staff
would prefer to have people use sidewalks instead of walking through the parking
lot. The Director of Public Works added that City staff had expected the City of
Brooklyn Park to extend the trail, but it was left as a dead end. He said it was
unknown when Brooklyn Park would plan on extending their trail, and City staff would
prefer not to leave this as a dead end.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -95
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING WEST PALMER LAKE PARK TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985-18
AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF
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, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same:
Bill Hawes, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Central Park Plaza
Improvement Project No. 198+ -10, Phase II and Accepting Proposal for Construction
Thereof. He noted the purpose of this project is to provide outdoor faucets to
attach hoses in order to water the plants. He added that the Garden Club suggested
the faucets are necessary in order to properly maintain the plants.
Councilmember Hawes requested clarification of this project. The City Manager
stated there are six flower beds, and each flower bed would have a faucet to connect a
hose to. Councilmember Hawes stated that he felt this was a great deal of money for
this project. The Director of Public Works responded saying quotations had been
received from two installers, and a third quotation received was even higher than
these two quotations. He noted that a great deal of plumbing is involved in this
project. Councilmember Hawes asked why a water storage tank is necessary, and the
Director of Public Works said he was advised that it is necessary to get uniform
pressure. The City Manager added that the tank would be attached to a shallow well,
where the land is harder and more expensive to work with.
Councilmember Theis expressed concern that if the water would be coming from a
shallow well, the iron content would be the same as that at the City garage. The
Director of Public Works noted that the City garage well is 20' deep, and the City
Engineer stated this well would be 100' deep. Councilmember Theis asked what the
iron content of the water for this project would be, and the City Engineer responded
6 -10 -85 -6-
that the iron content had not been tested. Councilmember Theis asked where the
location of these faucets would be in relationship to the sidewalks. The City
Manager responded saying the sidewalks would not be affected, but the blacktop is in
the area. Councilmember Theis asked why these faucets could not be run on the City
system, and the City Manager stated it would be more expensive to run the water from
the water main. Councilmember Theis asked if the sprinkling system had now been
changed at the City garage, and the City Manager responded affirmatively.
Y g A
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -96
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CENTRAL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -10, PHASE II AND
ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR CONSTRUCTION THEREOF
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, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same:
Bill Hawes, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
DISCUSSION ITEM
CIVIL DEFENSE WARNING SIRENS PROPOSALS
The City Manager reviewed the proposals before the City Council this evening, and
stated that Proposal Two would give the best coverage to the City.
Councilmember Theis asked what the current age of the sirens is, and the Deputy City
Clerk stated that the sirens are approximately 30 years old. Councilmember Theis
questioned the current siren coverage, and the City Manager responded that in the
past no comprehensive plan had been developed for the civil defense sirens.
Councilmember Theis asked about the capability of the sirens in varyin g weather
conditions, and the City Manager responded that weather would have some affect on
the siren coverage.
Councilmember Hawes noted he had received complaints from residents living in the
northwest part of the City. The City Manager stated that the City is not covering as
much of an area as was thought in the past.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -104
Member — Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS CAPITAL OUTLAY
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Vacating Irving Avenue North as Platted
Within the Hellsted Addition. He explained the ordinance is offered for a first
reading and provides for vacation of a platted, but never developed 30' wide street
right -of -way, i.e. Irving Avenue North from 69th Avenue North to its dead end
approximately 490 south of 69th Avenue North.
6 -10 -85 -7-
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Vacating Irving Avenue North as Platted
Within the Hellsted Addition and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for
July 8, 1985 at 7 :30 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Liquor Licenses. He explained the ordinance was first read on May 6,
1985, published in the City's official newspaper on May 16, 1985, and is offered this
evening for a second reading. He stated the ordinance provides an additional class
of liquor license (Class D) to the ordinance, and it also addresses miscellaneous
housekeeping changes and corrections to the City liquor ordinance.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Liquor Licenses. He inquired
if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing.
Councilmember Theis questioned the process of timing for when an applicant must have
a Class D license. He asked if an applicant would have the same license fee through
the end of the calendar year, and the City Attorney responded affirmatively.
Mayor Nyquist noted that no one requested to speak at the public hearing and he
entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by
Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public
hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Couneilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -09
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: i
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING LIQUOR LICENSES
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and
adopted.
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances
Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees. He explained the ordinance
was first read on May 6, 1985, published in the City's official newspaper on May 16
1985, and is offered this evening for a second reading. He explained this ordinance
establishes the license fee for the Class D liquor license.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License Fees. 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 Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances
Regarding On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Fees. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
6 -10 -85 -8-
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -10
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ON -SALE
INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FEES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed
and adopted.
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the
Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining
of Vehicles. He explained the ordinance was first read on May 6, 1985, published in
the City's official newspaper on May 16, 1985, and is offered this evening for a
second reading. He explained this ordinance addresses the issue of vehicles stored
on private property which had been previously classified as junk vehicles.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the Regulating, the Operating, Parking,
Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining of Vehicles. 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 Theis to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending the City Ordinance Relating to the
Regulating, the Operating, Parking, Storing, Repairing, Servicing, and Maintaining
of Vehicles. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and
Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 85 -11
Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REGULATING, THE OPERATING,
PARKING, STORING, REPAIRING, SERVICING, AND MAINTAINING OF [JUNK] VEHICLES
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and
adopted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM
PLANNING COM1MiISSION APPLICATION NO. 8501 SUBMITTED BY SILVER LAKE LEASING,
REQUESTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE A_ CAR LEASING OFFICE IN THE
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 4315 70TH AVENUE 'NORTH
The City Manager explained Application No. 011 was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission at its May 23, 1985 meeting. The Director of Planning &
Inspection reviewed Application No. 850114, stating the area in question is zoned C -2
for commercial use, and auto rental and leasing are special uses in a C -2 zoning
district, so a special use permit is necessary. He added that no cars would be
6 -10 -85 -9-
stored at the site, and stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of
Application No. 85014 subject to the conditions listed on the information sheet.
Councilmember Theis asked if the paper work only would be conducted at this site, and
leased cars would be stored only at the auto dealership site. The Director of
Planning & Inspection responded that this would be the case.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 85014. He inquired if there was anyone in the audience
who wished to speak at the public hearing.
Mr. Bruce Johnson representing Silver Lake Leasing introduced himself to the City
Council. Councilmember Scott inquired about the process for leasing a car. Mr.
Johnson stated a credit rating would be checked on a customer, and a car with the
options desired would be ordered with a minimum of one year leasing. He added that
much of the work consists of phone calls, and stated his was a paper- oriented
business with individuals and small corporations as customers. He added at this
point the company can handle 150 leases.
Mayor Nyquist asked if there was anyone else in the audience 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. 85014. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 85014, subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no storage or transfer of vehicles at the site or on
the neighboring Legion Club property. Office use only is
permitted at 4315 70th Avenue North.
2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility
and is nontransferable.
3. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7 :52 p.m. and reconvened at 8:03 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -10
The City Manager stated a notice of the hearing had been published in the official
newspaper and all affected property owners had received written notice of the
hearing. He stated the City Council must decide on whether or not to order this
project, and if ordered, another hearing would be held when costs are known.
6 -10 -85 -10-
i
The Director of Public Works reviewed a history of the project, presenting a map
showing those properties listed on an original petition requesting an improvement
project between 67th and 69th Avenues North on France, Ewing, and Drew Avenues
North, and on 67th and 68th Avenues North between Drew and France Avenues North. He
stated that 50% of those living on the 6800 block of Ewing had signed the petition,
and on this basis he was recommending to the City Council that consideration be given
only to Ewing between 67th and 68th Avenues North. The Director of Public Works
added that following the receipt of the first petition, he received a petition
opposing the project, and the second petition contained names of homeowners from the
first petition.
The City Manager stated that based on the initial petition a hearing had been
requested, but since then numerous complaints had been received. Therefore, City
staff recommends this improvement project not be considered for construction this
season. He added that the petitions are flawed, because common names are on both
petitions for and against the project. He added that a public hearing must be held
nevertheless.
Councilmember Hawes asked if both husband and wife may sign opposing petitions, and
the City Manager stated that it would be a valid petition, if so done. The City
Manager stated that a simple majority of the City Council is needed for approval of
the project if a petition is presented, and if no petition is received a four -to -one
vote is necessary.
Councilmember Hawes asked if in this case husband and wife had signed opposing
positions, and the City Manager stated no one had. Councilmember Theis asked what
the length of time between receipt of the first and second petition was. The City
Manager responded he was not sure, but the petitions probably had been received
within several weeks of each other.
Mayor
N uist inquired as t h
Y yq q o the reason for those who had signed two petitions. The
g
City Manager responded that he was not sure. He added that in the future, the
petition process may not be recommended in order to maintain anonymity. He added
the opportunity P exists for misinterpretation when a petition is used.
The Director of Public Works stated the original petition received by the
Engineering Department was dated March 20 1 8 and the petition opposing g g P , 9 5, P PA g the first
petition was received on April 19, 1985. He stated that several people originally
signing in favor of the project did not know they were signing for all the streets in
the neighborhood, and said these people would not have signed the original petition
knowing that the improvement project would only be for one block.
Councilmember Theis asked how much information is given to the petition - carrier.
The Director of Public Works said the petitioner is able to decide what area they
want covered on a petition, and the petition is then made up by the Engineering
Department. A cover letter was sent with the new assessment policy along with
information describing the proposed improvements. Counter petitions were also
sent along and the petition- carrier was told to ask property owners to sign one or
the other petition. The Director of Public Works stated that sometimes this
procedure is followed, and sometimes it is not.
Councilmember Theis asked if the first petition contained the six block area. The
Director of Public Works responded saying five separate petitions, including two
block areas, and five counter petitions opposed to those improvements in those areas
were sent with the petition - carrier.
6 -10 -85 -11-
Councilmember Hawes asked how far the improvement project would go past 68th and
69th Avenues North on Ewing Avenue North, and the City Manager replied that the
street would be paved just around the radius of the corner.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Ewing Avenue
North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -10.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a member of the audience who asked if the original petition
was signed for several blocks, who had the right to change the petition to a one block
area. The City Manager responded that the City Council chose to go block by block.
The Mayor recognized another member of the audience who stated he lived on the
corner, and wondered if he would be charged again when the other side of the street
would be paved. The City Manager stated that the resident would be assessed one
time only.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Larry Nelson of 6701 Drew Avenue North, who asked how he
would be affected by this project. The City Manager responded that this hearing is
on Ewing Avenue North between 68th and 69th Avenues North.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a member of the audience who inquired why the person
carrying the petition was not educated on the proposals. The City Manager
responded that an attempt is made to educate the petition - carrier, but the process
is not alway so simple. The member of the audience stated his opinion that it is the
responsibility of the City Council to go out with the petitions in order to avoid
confusion.
The Director of Public Works stated that the original petitioner and the second
petitioners were all acting in good faith, as was his office. He added it was a
matter of incomplete information being available to the residents.
Mayor Nyquist recognized the resident of 6737 Ewing Avenue North who said at no time
had he approved of the improvement project. He asked on what basis the City decided
to conduct a survey of the residents without justification. The City Manager
stated if someone expresses an interest then a short process will be followed. One
method is to use a petition which can be very effective, but subject to problems.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a member of the audience who predicted a drainage problem
would occur if the project were completed. The Director of Public Works stated that
if the current project is planned, the existing bituminous gutter across from 69th
Avenue North would be removed and replaced with a concrete drain.
Mayor Nyquist recognized another member of the audience who stated that although her
residence indicates that she had signed the first petition, she had never even seen
that petition.
Mayor Nyquist addressed the audience, asking all those in favor of the Ewing Avenue
North Street improvement project to raise their hand, and one person did so. Mayor
Nyquist asked for the number of those opposing the improvement project, and
approximately 20 members of the audience indicated their opposition.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
610-85 -12-
public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and.seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on Ewing Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985-
10. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -99
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR EWING AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -10
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -11
The City Manager announced that notice of the hearing had been published in the
official newspaper and all affected property owners had received written notice of
the hearing.
The Director of Public Works stated an original petition had been issued with no
signatures received. The property owner asked for a new petition to be drawn up for
Drew Avenue North between 68th and 69th Avenues North. On this second petition six
residents voted in favor of the petition while eight members voted against it.
Based on this petition, the Engineering staff presented this proposal to the City
Council for consideration and a public hearing had been set for this date. A
subsequent petition opposing the improvements on Drew Avenue North between 67th and
69th Avenues North showed no one in favor of installation of the improvements. The
Director of Public Works stated he had received a number of calls from property
owners stating their objections to the improvements on Drew Avenue North. He added
that the original circulator of the petition for the improvement on Drew Avenue
North between 68th and 69th Avenues North is no longer in favor of the improvement.
Based on these events, the Director of Public Works recommended to the City Council
that this project be denied.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Drew Avenue
North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -11. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ernie
Erickson of 6800 Drew Avenue North who stated this project should be terminated for
the same reasons as those given for the Ewing Avenue North Improvement Project.
Mayor Nyquist recognized another member of the audience who stated he wished to
change his preference from approval to opposition of the project.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Drew Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985-
11. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
6 -10 -85 -13-
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -100
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS FOR DREW AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -11
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, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12
The City Manager stated that notice of the hearing had been published in the official
newspaper and all affected property owners had received written notice of the
hearing.
The Director of Public Works noted this project was initiated by a petition of the
property owners, and all property owners were offered a chance to sign either for or
against the improvement. He added that more than a majority is in favor of
proceeding with the improvement project, and therefore this project is recommended
for a public hearing tonight. He stated the high cost for construction of this
project is due to the very substantial deterioration of the existing roadway caused
by a high water table, poor soil, and bad street materials. In order to properly
construct a street, the current street must be removed and a totally new bituminous
surface replaced at a cost of $92,830. The homeowners will be assessed for a
portion of the cost.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Dallas Road
Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -12.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a member of the audience who asked if the new street would
hold up even with all of the garbage truck traffic. The City Manager stated the new
street is designed to hold five tons, and because drainage has been a problem, it
will be corrected with this project. The Director of Public Works added that a
valid point was made regarding the garbage trucks, because especially during the
spring a problem does exist. He stated the proposed reconstruction would hold up
for a goodly amount of time.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a member of the audience who asked what amount of time would
be necessary to complete the project, and the Director of Public Works responded
saying depending on the contractor, the project may take close to one month from
start to finish.
Mayor Nyquist recognized another member of the audience who asked if some boulevard
reconstruction would be involved, and the Director of Public Works stated that some
damage may be done to boulevards and driveways, but restoration of the property is
included in the contract costs.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by
Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Dallas Road Street Improvement
Project No. 1985 -12. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
6 -10 -85 -14-
ti
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -101
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
Councilmember Theis exited the Council chambers at 9:01 p.m. and returned at 9:03
P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13
The City Manager stated notice of the hearing had been published in the official
newspaper and all affected property owners had received written notice of the
hearing. He added that no special assessments would be involved in this project,
which would be at the City's expense.
The Director of Public Works presented a map of the area and stated the project was
initiated by a property owner, and 50% of the properties abutting Wingard Lane
approved of the improvement, and the other five residents did not sign a petition
either for or against the project. He stated that the Engineering Department had
developed a proposal for construction of a hammerhead turnaround, which will
attempt to eliminate the through traffic in the neighborhood. He stated that
presently traffic counts indicate over 1,000 vehicles per day use Wingard Lane, and
he estimated 90% of this traffic is from outside of the neighborhood.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the history of this street, noting it was built
in 1958 as a private street, and was accepted in 1961 as a public street. In 1971 a
petition was presented to the City for a culdesac as a turnaround, and the City
Council denied that proposal because of the high cost of the turnaround. The City
would have had to acquire additional right -of -way at that time, but this would not be
the case now. He added that following the 1971 proceedings "No Through Traffic"
signs had been posted which are still in place, but there are problems of
enforcement.
Councilmember Hawes asked if any contact had been made with the owner of the
northwest end of the street and if so had the owner agreed to close one driveway.
The Director of Public Works stated he had been a
un ble to contact the property owner
but if the City Council recommends this project to proceed, official contact could
be made with the property owner. Councilmember Hawes asked if the problem would be
transferred to the church property in the area, and the Director of Public Works
responded saying the problem could never be totally eliminated. He added the stop
light at 71st and Brooklyn Boulevard would receive most of the diverted traffic.
Councilmember Hawes stated that drivers will still want to use the church driveway,
and the City Manager noted that the church does have a gate, a recognition that a
problem already exists. Councilmember Hawes asked if it would be possible to have
the northbound traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard turn right onto Wingard Lane, but
prohibit vehicles from exiting onto Brooklyn Boulevard from Wingard Lane. The
Director of Public Works stated that some costs would be saved, but it would be
6 -10 -85 -15-
difficult to stop violators. Councilmember Hawes asked if the church had been
contacted, and the Director of Public Works stated it had not.
Councilmember Theis inquired what the average residential street has for traffic
compared to the 1,000 vehicles per day that travel on this road. The Director of
Public Works responded saying the average household generates eight to ten vehicles
per day, and Wingard Lane has eight houses with driveways on the street, resulting in
an average of 100 vehicles per household per day. He added that a traffic count
taken in November of 198 showed 1,250 vehicles per day traveling on Wingard Lane.
Councilmember Theis requested a comparison of the type of snow removal problems
encountered with the hammerhead as compared to a culdesac. The Director of Public
Works stated it is easier for plows to plow a hammerhead as opposed to a culdesac,
because it is easy for a plow to follow a pattern on the hammerhead. He said
according to former Superintendent of Streets and Parks, Henry Davis, the
hammerhead takes approximately one -half as much time as a culdesac to plow.
Councilmember Theis asked what type of barricade would be posted at the end of the
hammerhead, and the Director of Public Works stated there were several
possibilities, including a three to four foot earth mound, landscaping to visually
screen off the area, posting of a dead end sign, and possibly the installation of a
barricade.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Wingard Lane
Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -13. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Greg Luchen,
the owner as of May 1, 1985 of the northeast corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and Wingard
Lane. Mr. Luchen stated he was concerned about having only one driveway open off of
Brooklyn Boulevard, because in the winter time he receives three lanes of snow in his
driveway from the plowing of Brooklyn Boulevard. He asked how much of his property
would be lost due to this improvement project, and the Director of Public Works
stated that no use of private property would be involved in this project.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Max Garrett of 4706 Wingard Lane, who noted in the last
few years there have been four accidents, of which one has been fatal. He added that
not one of those involved lived on Wingard Lane. Mr. Garrett's wife stated that
much property damage had occurred on the corner from cars coming around the corner.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mir. Robert Nelson of 7227 Noble Avenue North, who said his
driveway is on Wingard Lane, and he had not been approached regarding the
improvement project. He did say he is in favor of this project.
Mayor Nyquist again recognized Mir. Greg Luchen who said he had rented the property
for one year prior to purchasing it, and he had found many dead animals on his
property killed by vehicles traveling on Wingard Lane.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Ms. Eleanor M:aegi of 4721 Wingard Lane, who stated she is in
favor of the improvement project even though she did not sign the petition. She
stated that accidents are caused because of the parking on the street, and asked if
it is a street that can be parked on. The City Manager stated the City does have an
ordinance prohibiting overnight parking, and the ordinance is strictly enforced in
late fall and winter. The Director of Public Works stated the width of the street
varies from 28 1/2' to 30 He added the City is receptive to parking restrictions
if a petition is presented to the City.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Greg Luchen who inquired if the woman across the street
6 -10 -85 -16-
from him had been notified, and the City Manager stated that she had been notified.
Mayor Nyquist recognized another resident who complained that Wingard Lane does not
have any street lights. The City Manager stated a block must be 700' long in order
to have a street light, but the City will investigate this complaint
g � Y g
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -102
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13, AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14
The City Manager stated notice of the hearing had been published in the official
newspaper and all affected property owners had received written notification of the
hearing.
The Director of Public Works commented that all property owners favored this
improvement project, although the Garden City School did not sign the petition.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on 65th Avenue
North Street Improvement Project No. 1985 -14.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Francis Zins of 3408 -65th Avenue North, who stated he
lived across from the apartments at 3407 -65th Avenue North. He stated that severe
parking problems exist due to the parties occurring at the apartment building. The
City Manager commented that the parking problem can be reviewed as a separate issue
by City staff.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on 65th Avenue North Street Improvement Project No. 1985-
14. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -103
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
6 -10 -85 -17-
RESOLUTION ORDERING 65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -14, AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
DISCUSSION ITEM
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE COST ANALYSIS AND FINANCING PLAN
The City Manager stated that based on information received from the Park &
Recreation Commission the City recommends the City Council to hold a public hearing
on the proposed golf course.
Councilmember Theis inquired whether or not the full -time manager of the golf course
would be available year round. The City Manager stated that the full- time manager
would be available year round, and temporary employees would work at the golf course
as seasonal employees. Councilmember Theis asked if the golf course would be open
12 hours a day, and the City Manager responded affirmatively. The City Manager
stated the golf course manager would not be at the golf course 12 hours a day every
day of the week during the golf season, but would be available on call or other City
personnel would be available to the part -time employees. The City Manager added
that the cost involved for the part -time personnel are based on experiences of the
Roseville and New Hope golf courses.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
schedule a public hearing on the proposed municipal golf course for June 24, 1985.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Brooklyn
Center City Council adjourned at 9:47 p.m.
i
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
6 -10 -85 -18-
MEMORANDUM
ie TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planner
RE: Performance Guarantees
DATE: June 19, 1985
The following performance guarantees are recommended for release:
1. Car -X Muffler Shop
6810 Brooklyn Boulevard
Planning Commission Application No. 81023
Amount of Guarantee: $5,000.00 Bond
Obligor: Thomas Cook (Owner)
Existing $5,000.00 bond is to cover deferred improvements
(permanent curb and landscaping) on south portion of site,
not completed with the construction of the muffler shop.
A new quick lube shop development has been approved for
this portion of the site and a new guarantee submitted to
cover the proposed site work. Recommend total release of
old $5,000.00 bond.
2. Rosemary Terrace
1501 -1555 Humboldt Place
Planning Commission Application No. 80030
Amount of Guarantee: $1,500.00 in two letters of credit
Obligors: Ed Kauffmann, David Dederichs
All required improvements have been installed and nearly all
landscaping has survived for at least one year. Recommend
total release.
A p p r ov by r.ti..,.s
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR YEARS IX AND
X TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR A CCNSIDERATION AS PART OF THE URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE HOUSING AND CO MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has executed a cooperation
agreement with Hennepin County agreeing to participate in the Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Program; and
WHEREAS, the three year Community Development Program and Housing
Assistance Plan has been prepared consistent with the Ccmprehensi.ve Urban
Hennepin County Community Development strategy and the Community Development
Program regulations; and
WHEREAS, three year Community Development Program and Housing Assistance
Plan has been subject to citizen review pursuant to the Urban Hennepin County
.Citizen Participation Plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center approve the amendments to program years IX and X as follows:
Year IX Projects
#001 Acquisition (Homeownership) $227,000
#551 Rehab Private Property 33,991
#826 Contingency 55,575
Year IX Total $316,566
Year X
#551 Rehab Private Property $305,637
Year X Total $305,637
That the above projects in the amount of $622,203 be reprogrammed
for a new project for the removal of slum and blight through the acquisition
of the Earle Brown Farm State Historic site.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
DATE: June 21, 1985
V`
SUBJECT: CDBG Reprogramming
The Brooklyn Center Advisory Group on Block Grants held a public hearing on
Wednesday June 19th to discuss the reprogramming of Year IX and X. In fact
their actions reconfirmed the recommendation to the Council last September.
It is the recommendation of the group to reprogram $520,000 of the CDBG funds
for the acquistion of the Farm with the remaining $102,203 being used for the
rehab grant program. However, since the meeting I have found that We are not
in a position to bill enough rehab grant money before July 1, the deadline,
and we run the risk of losing that money. It is my recommendation that all of
the money from Years IX and X be committed to the acquisition of the Farm and
that we reprogram Year XI's rehab program by adding the $102,203 and taking it
from Year XI's Earle Brawn Farm fund. In effect, the Council will be committing
the same dollar amounts for each project as recommended by the Citizens Advisory
Committee.
/'� 6
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALYN BARONE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative
Agreement with 13 other communities to form the Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Council on December 8, 1975; and
WHEREAS, as stated in Article 4, Section 3 of the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, Inc., members
of the Board of Directors shall be appointed by the governing body of each
party; and
WHEREAS, a vacancy on the Board of Directors was created with the
resignation of Tom Bublitz, former Deputy City Clerk /Personnel Coordinator
for the City of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center that Geralyn Barone, Deputy City Clerk /Personnel Coordinator
be appointed to represent the City of Brooklyn Center on the Board of Directors
of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council.
- Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
/4c
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CITY
HALL /COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING PROJECT NO. 1984-
12, PHASE III
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written Contract for Improvement
Project No. 1984 -12, Phase III signed with the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, Minnesota Tree, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
CITY HALL /COMMUNITY CENTER LANDSCAPING
PROJECT NO. 1984 -12, PHASE III
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract is accepted
and approved according to the following schedule:
As Approved Final Amount
Original Contract $ 9,985.00 $ 9,551.60
2. The value of work performed is less than the
original contract amount by $433.40 due to a general
overestimation of planned quantities.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on
said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in
full. The total amount to be paid for said improve-
ment under said contract shall be $9,551.60.
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.
fay
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER SHINGLE
CREEK TRAILWAY LANDSCAPING PROJECT NO. 1984 -15
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract for Improvement
project No. 1984 -15 signed with the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota, Mickman Brothers Nurseries, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAY LANDSCAPING PROJECT NO. 1984 -15
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract is accepted
and approved according to the following schedule:
As Approved Final Amount
Original Contract $12,872.00 $12,872.00
2. The value of work performed is equal to the
original contract.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on
said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in
full. The total amount to be paid for said improve-
ment under said contract shall be $12,872.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
�a
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING
SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -15, APPROVING
SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
(CONTRACT 1985 -H)
-------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the
City Engineer regarding the feasibility of seal coating various
streets in the City at an estimated cost of $120,750; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the
best interests of the city of Brooklyn Center to complete said
improvement:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted.
2. The following project is hereby established and
ordered constructed:
SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 - 15
3. The plans and specifications for said improvement as
prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved
and ordered filed with the City Clerk.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be
inserted at least twice in the official newspaper
and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and
specify the work to be done, state that said bids
will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M.
on July 18, 1985, at which time they will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall
by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be
tabulated and will be considered by the City Council
at 7:00 P.M. on July 22, 1985, in the Council
Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless
sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied
by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or
certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of
the amount of such bid.
TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer
DATE: June 20, 1985
RE: 1985 Street Seal Coating Program
The 1985 operating budget for the Street Maintenance Division
comprehends the expenditure of $120,750 for contract seal coating
of approximately 15 miles of local streets within the City.
Staff has completed a review of street conditions within the City
and we recommend that the seal coating program include 6.3 miles
of collector streets and 9.3 miles of local (residential) streets
as shown on the attached map.
Upon review of the 1984 seal coating program (the first year that
street seal coating was placed under contract) staff is satisfied
that the needs of the City were met in a timely, efficient
manner. Accordingly, staff recommends the continuation of the
contractual seal coating of its local streets as provided in the
attached resolution.
JNG : j n
r � �!�!ali,fif!ot�',' i zsi' � �i� ��!!l;a6fi� +���rS[lji;tE��R +iii `�'�ei( 9!(; `i�l ✓ v" L� .... �..`...
V �, .f 6 i ie;,t tE a+ ` -° a3 i 1', � !�'t'[i � �� • � �..._ _
..- - .- ... .. .. .. . •" �� �� -- -- � ".r —_^cr eeaoa rn _ ..mf --- --- .�.. cwrc�
P•.a? % / _ \ .}�+�y�le Q i,�ci •� •'A �� a ef' �J� ,. \� -_ �..n.
R g.
,.,- K � -. ��� (�• l I �r ilf .� - _ •; -/ i 0' � ; aai a J :� "� . • , ��i 0 � ,. . .'
,. .. . ; ..g n- 3 � \ti `��. • ' i naw M.
C) E= � I =.J -J
-- O D L f— J
O O T d� I �! Cam]
*00
� .ry
E R`.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR DALLAS ROAD
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -12, WINGARD
LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -13, AND
65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1985 -14 (CONTRACT 1985 -K)
--------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications
for Street Improvement Projects Nos. 1985 -12, 1985 -13, and 1985-
14 and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council
for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. The plans and specifications for the following
improvement as prepared by the City Engineer are
approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk:
DALLAS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -12
WINGARD LANE STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -13
65TH AVENUE NORTH STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -14
2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be
inserted at least twice in the official newspaper
and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and
specify the work to be done, state that said bids
will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M.
on July 18, 1985, at which time they will be
publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall
by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be
tabulated and will be considered by the City Council
at 7:00 P.M. on July 22, 1985, in the Council
Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless
sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied
by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or
certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of
the amount of such bid.
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.
1985 -21, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1985 -L)
----------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report
regarding the feasibility of replacing the existing fuel
dispensing system at the Municipal Service Garage at an estimated
cost of $56,930; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considers it to be in the best
interests of the City to provide for the replacement of said fuel
dispensing system at the cost estimated:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted.
2. The following project is hereby established:.
MUNICIPAL SERVICE GARAGE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -21
3. The specifications for Contract 1985 -L for said
improvement project prepared by the City Engineer
are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City
Clerk.
4. Thq City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be
inserted at least twice in the official newspaper
and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement
for bids upon the making of such improvement under
such approved plans and specifications. The
advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10)
days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and
specify the work to be done, state that said
bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00
A.M. on July 18, 1985, at which time they will
be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City
Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then
be tabulated and will be considered by the City
Council at 7:00 P.M. on July 22, 1985, in the
Council Chambers, and that no bids will be
considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's
check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the
City for 5 percent of the amount of such bid.
RESOLUTION NO.
5. Financing for Improvement Project No. 1985 -21 shall
be provided through the transfer of $10,000 from
Division 40 of the Capital Projects Fund and $55,500
from Division 38 of the Capital Projects Fund to
Division 09 of the Capital Projects Fund.
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.
TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer
DATE: June 20, 1985
RE: Municipal Service Garage Improvement Project No. 1985 -21
The City awarded a contract for the removal and reconditioning of
the three fuel tanks (2- 10,000 gallon and 1- 12,000 gallon) at the
former 7- Eleven site at 69th and Humboldt Avenues. That
contractual work has been completed and staff has prepared plans
and specifications for the removal and disposal of the four
existing tanks (1 -8,000 gallon and 3- 10,000 gallon), and
installation of the three reconditioned tanks.
Also proposed in conjunction with the tank replacement is the
installation of a cathodic protection "package" wherein each tank
will be protected against corrosion. In addition, the proposal
provides for installation of an observation well system that may
be monitored regularly to insure that no tank leakage has
occurred. Both proposed systems are required by the state to
insure that positive steps have been taken to protect the
environment.
Finally, it is proposed that the existing outdated pump island
dispensers be replaced with new dispenser units and that the new
units be electrically interconnected with the fuel security
system.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The estimated cost of the proposed project is as follows:
Contract $45,000
Contingencies 6,750
Subtotal $51,750
Engineering 4,660
Administration 520
Total $56,930
It is proposed that a separate division be established within the
Capital Projects Fund (Division 09) and that the project be
financed through the transfer of funds as follows:
Division 40 - Municipal Garage Improvements
Unencumbered funds available - $15,660
Proposed transfer to Division 09 - $10,000
Note: this leave $5,660 available for use in the installation of
a fire alarm system in 1986.
June 20, 1985 - Project 1985 -21
Page 2
Division 38 - Evergreen Park /Area Improvements
Unencumbered funds available - $116,630
Proposed transfer to Division 09 - $55,500
Note: The City Council had previously transferred $40,000 to
this Division from Division 40 when the financing plan was
adopted. Essentially, the unused $40,000 is returned for
use at the garage, only under Division 09. The resultant
unencumbered balance for Division 38 would be $61,130.
As a result of these transfers, Division 09 would receive
$65,500, or $8,570 more than needed to finance the cost of this
project. This amount would be held until all portions of the
project have been completed, at which time an appropriate
transfer would be made to the Liquor Store fund to reimburse it
for the value of the reconditioned tanks from the 7- Eleven Store.
(The Liquor Store fund originally paid for tank removal and
reconditioning.)
The attached resolution which establishes the project and its
funding is submitted for City Council review at its June 24th
meeting.
Respectfully submitted, Recommende 'for Approval,
Jim Grube Sy I app
City Engineer Director of Public Works
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR
XERXES AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN C.S.A.H. 10 AND 170
FEET SOUTH OF 59TH AVENUE NORTH AND 200 FEET NORTH
OF 65TH AVENUE NORTH TO BRIDGE NO 27927 OVER F.A.I.94
-----------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, plans have been prepared by the City Engineer
for the bituminous overlay of Xerxes Avenue North between
C.S.A.H. 10 and Bridge No 27927 over F.A.I. 94 utilizing
Municipal State Aid funds (M.S.A.P. 109 - 110 -09); and
WHEREAS, said plans specify that the segments of Xerxes
Avenue North between C.S.A.H. 10 and 170 feet south of 59th
Avenue North and between a point 200 feet north of 65th Avenue
North to Bridge No. 27927 over F.A.I. 94 be maintained and /or
reconstructed at widths which require total prohibition of
parking along their lengths in accordance with Municipal State
Aid rules:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that, effective upon
completion of Xerxes Avenue North improvement project M.S.A.P.
10 109- 110 -09 that "No Parking Anytime" regulations are hereby
approved for the following segments:
1. Xerxes Avenue North from C.S.A.H. 10 to 170 feet
south of 59th Avenue North
2. Xerxes Avenue North from 200 feet north of 65th
Avenue North to Bridge 27927.
and that said regulations shall be posted on both sides of said
segments.
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.
TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
FROM: Jim Grube, City Engineer
DATE: June 20, 1985
RE: Xerxes Avenue North Improvement Project No. 1985 -09
On June 14, staff attended a Variance Committee hearing regarding
the City's request to use M.S.A. funds for the bituminous overlay
of Xerxes Avenue North from C.S.A.H. 10 to F.A.I. 94. In order
to be eligible for state aid funding, staff had to successfully
present, and defend, its claim that the existing roadway
configuration and parking use was acceptable from a design
viewpoint. We have received a preliminary indication from MN /DOT
that our ',proposal was accepted, and official notification of the
approval is forthcoming.
Attached herewith are two resolutions submitted for City Council
consideration on June 24. Both resolutions must be adopted in
order that M.S.A. funding may be used.
1. Resolution establishing no parking along Xerxes Avenue from
C.S.A.H. 10 northerly to a point where the single family
residential use begins (170 feet south of 59th Avenue) and
also along Xerxes Avenue from where the single family
residential use ends (200 feet north of 65th Avenue)
northerly to F.A.I. 94.
2. Resolution holding MN /DOT harmless of any claim which may
arise from receipt of MN /DOT approval to construct or
maintain a street configuration which does not conform to
M.S.A. standards.
Passage of the parking resolution will not affect (or change) the
parking use as it exists now. Its passage is strictly a
"housekeeping" item needed to meet MN /DOT regulations. The "hold
harmless" resolution is also required by MN /DOT as a standard
condition relating to the approval of any variance from
established M.S.A. standards.
Respectfully submitted Recommended for Approval,
James N. Grube Sy Knapp
City Engineer Director of Public Works
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CAULKING /SEALANT IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -22 AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR
COMPLETION THEREOF
-------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City
Council that it is necessary and in the best interests of the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to replace the caulking/
sealant at the Civic Center and the Municipal Garage;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received proposals for
completion of said work, submitted bids being as follows:
Bidder Base Bid Alternate Total Bid
- - - - -- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
Carciofini Caulking Co. $4,490.00 $1,130.00 $5,620.00
Right -Way Caulking, Inc. 6,843.00 1,156.00 7,999.00
A.J. Spanjers Co, Inc. 7,720.00 1,650.00 9,370.00
WHEREAS, the proposal of Carciofini Caulking Company, in
the amount of $5,620.00 is the lowest responsible proposal
received and the Director of Public Works has recommended that a
contract be awarded to said firm in that amount.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The following project is hereby established:
CAULKING /SEALANT IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -22
2. The proposal of Carciofini Caulking Company, in the
amount of $5,620.00, is hereby accepted. The Mayor
and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed
to enter into a contract with said firm in that
amount.
3. Improvement Project No. 1985 -22 will be financed
through the appropriation of funds from the 1985
Budget, Government Buildings Division.
RESOLUTION NO.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION INDEMNIFYING THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FROM
ANY CLAIMS RESULTING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF A
VARIANCE FROM ESTABLISHED STREET WIDTH STANDARDS AS
THEY RELATE TO XERXES AVENUE NORTH FROM NORTHWAY
DRIVE TO F.A.I. 94
---------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has petitioned the
Commissioner of Transportation for issuance of a variance from
existing Minnesota Rules 8820.9919 relating to street width along
Xerxes Avenue North between Northway Drive and F.A.I. 94:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that in the event the
Commissioner of Transportation issues a variance from Minnesota
Rules as herein referenced the City Council indemnifies, saves,
a
and holds harmless the State of Minnesota an d all its g ents and
employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, or
causes of actions of any nature or character arising out of, or
by any reason of, in any manner, the overlay of Xerxes Avenue
North from Northway Drive to F.A.I. 94 in any other manner than
as a street width of 32 feet with parking on one side in
accordance with the Minnesota Rules 8820.9919 and further
agrees to defend at their sole cost and expense any action or
proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of
whatsoever character - arising as a result of the granting of this
variance.
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.
/9,4
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the of
, 1985 at at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider amending the City Ordinance Relating to the Filing for
Municipal Office.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
FILING FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 29 -401 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended
by deleting the [bracketed] material and adding the underlined material:
Section 29 -401. FILING FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE. At least [sixteen
(16)] eighteen (18) weeks before the regular election the City Clerk shall
cause to be published in the official newspaper a notice of filing for municipal
office. The notice of filing shall designate the officer to be elected, the
period during which affidavits of candidacy may be filed, and the time and
place for filing such affidavits. Not more than [fourteen (14)] sixteen (16)
weeks nor less than [twelve (12) ] fourteen (14) weeks before the regular municipal
election any person who is eligible and [desiring] desires to [have his name
placed on the official ballot as] become a candidate for a mdnici_ a office
_ l
p
shall file [his] an affidavit of candidacy with the City Clerk. The affidavit
shall be substantially the same form as required of candidates for state offices.
Upon payment of a $5 filing fee to the City Clerk the Clerk shall place the
name of the candidate on the official ballot without partisan designation.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adcption and thirty
(30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
[qt+
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
CITY COUNCIL
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 24, 1985 at approximately
7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
to consider the application described below.
TYPE OF REQUEST: Private Kennel License - Note: City Ordinance requires
private kennel license where more than two dogs,
exceeding six months of age, are kept in a household.
APPLICANT: Carolyn E. Duerr
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 6900 Regent Avenue North
BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF APPLICATION: Application for a Private
Kennel License to keep three (3) dogs at the residence at 6900 Regent
Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. The Applicant has indicated that the
dogs will be housed inside the residence at 6900 Regent Avenue North.
Respectfully,
Gerald G. Splinter
City Clerk
APPLICATION FOR PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL t /
Date:
1.� /j Applicann 's Name (Last, First, Middle)
CDC( (?D - v`�e G XC)P 1)I
2. Applicant's Address (Num Street, City, State, Zip Code)
3. Address or Legal Description of Proposed Kennel
4. Attach a sketch or drawing with this application describing the construction
and operation of the proposed kennel, or, if the animals are to be confined
within the family dwelling unit, indicate this on the application.
'u
C��� �Gn' u!_ J �G�- -ciJ2[1� ./✓+ -c `v"'"C ��� � a Lt. -�'.. �t�Cl -tc.�
5. Indicate number of animals to be confined within the proposed kennel,
together with their age breed and sex
6. PLEASE NOTE: The license fee in the amount of $30.00 must be submitted
with this application.
Sig7ature of Applicant
PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND LICENSE FEE TO: City Clerk, City of
Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430.
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
New License
Renewal License
License Period through
License ve Received
i
CHAPTER 1 - ANIMATES
Section 1 -101. DEFINITIONS. The following terms, when used in this
ordinance, have the meanings ascribed to them:
I. Animal Animal means dogs and cats.
2. Animal Control Officer. Animal Control Officer means that person or _
agency designated b the Ci Ma to control the keeping Y Y � ping of animals
within Brooklyn Center.
3. At large means an animal that is off the property of its owner and not
under restraint.
4• Commercial Kennel. Commercial kennel means any place limited to C2,
I -1 Ed zoning districts where the business of keeping, raising,
selling, boarding, breeding, showing, treating, or grooming of dogs
and other animals is conducted, including pet shops, animal hospitals
and other similar establishments.
5. Family. - Any of the following definitions shall apply:
a. A person or persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,
together with any domestic servants or gratuitous guests,
maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit;
b. Group or foster care of not more than six (6) wards or clients
by an authorized person or persons, related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, together with any domestic servants
or gratuitous guests, all maintaining a common household in
a dwelling unit approved and certified by the appropriate
public agency;
C. A group of not more than five (5) persons not related by
blood, marriage, or adoption maintaining a common household
in a dwelling unit.
6. Owner. Owner means any person or the parent or guardian of a person
under 18 years of age who owns, keeps, or has custody of an animal in the
City of Brooklyn Center.
7• Person. Person means any person, firm, corporation, partnership,
P � p P,
joint venture or association.
8. Private Kennel means any premises zoned or used for R1 and R2 purposes,
as defined in the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, on which three or
more dogs or four or more cats six months old or older, are kept or
harbored as ets and not for in
P o selling, boarding, showing, treating,
grooming or other commercial purposes.
i
9. Under Restraint means an animal that is controlled by a leash or at heel
beside a competent person having custody of it and obedient to that
person's commands, or within a vehicle being driven or parked on a
public street, or if it is within the property limits of its owner's
premises.
Section 1 -102. LICENSES REQUIRED.
1. Dog Licenses. No erson shall own harbor, keep or have p p custody of a
dog over six mon i� — age within the City of Brooklyn Center unless a current
license for such dog has been obtained as provided in this ordinance. Each license
shall be valid for the duration of the effective period of the dog's rabies vaccine
as stated in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Vaccines published by the Conference of
State Public Health Veterinarians and the Center for Disease Control of the
Department of Health and Human Services. Dogs kept in a commercial kennel need not
be individually licensed.
2. Commercial Kennel License Every person operating a commercial
kennel shall annually obtain from the City Clerk, upon authorization by the City
Council, a commercial kennel license. Commercial kennel licenses shall be posted
in a conspicuous place within the licensed premises.
3. Private Kennel License Every person operating or maintaining a
private kennel shall annually obtain from the City Clerk, upon authorization by the
City Council, a private kennel license.
Section 1 -103. LICENSE FEES. The license fee for each dog license, each
commercial kennel license, each private kennel license, each duplicate license,
each renewal license, each impounding penalty, and the late penalty described
herein shall be as set forth in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances.
1. Late Penalty. If any license required hereunder is obtained while the
dog is impounded by the City, or after the required licensing period has commenced,
there shall be added to the regular license fee, a late license penalty as provided
in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances, provided, however, that any person who
acquires a dog after the -start of a license year, or any person who owns, keeps,
harbors, or has custody of a dog at the time of becoming a resident of the City, shall
be allowed 30 days to secure a license, without incurring any late license penalty.
2. Refunds, Prorating, and Transfers. No dog license fee, commercial
kennel license fee, or private kennel license fee shall be refunded or prorated, the
provisions of Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances notwithstanding. No
license required hereunder shall be transferrable.
Section 1-104. VACCINATION REQUIRED. The owner of every dog in Brooklyn
Center shall cause such dog to be currently vaccinated for rabies. A certificate of
vaccination or other statement of the same effect executed by a licensed
veterinarian shall constitute prima facie proof of the required vaccination.
Section 1 -105. APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSES.
Applications for all licenses required by this ordinance shall be made to the City
Clerk.
1 . Dog License. The application for a dog license shall include the name
and address cT the owner of the dog and such other information as the City Clerk shall
require. All applicants shall be of legal age. Applicants shall provide a
certificate issued by a doctor of veterinary medicine showing that the dog has been
vaccinated against rabies, the type of vaccine used, and the length of time the
vaccination is effective.
1 -105
2. Issuance of Dog License. Upon receipt of the application, the license
fee and proof of a rabies vaccination, the City Clerk shall issue a metallic license
tag bearing the license number, the name of the City and the year and month when the
license period ends. The dog shall continuously wear a collar or harness to which
the license tag is firmly affixed. It shall be unlawful for any person to make or
use a counterfeit tag.
3. Replacement of Lost Dog License. If any dog license tag is lost or -
stolen, the applicant may oEtain a new ag- by surrending the license payment receipt
and by paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in Chapter 23 of
Brooklyn Center Ordinances.
4• Application for Private Kennel License or Commercial Kennel License.
Initial application for a private kennel license or a commercial kennel license
shall be made to the City Clerk. The application shall state the name and address of
the applicant, the property address or legal description of the proposed kennel
location, a sketch or drawing of the proposed kennel describing construction,
operation, and the approximate number of animals to be confined therein, together
with their age, breed, and sex, and together with the applicable license fee.
5. Hearing Required. A commercial kennel license application shall be
referred to the Public Health Sanitarian who shall review the kennel design and
operation and make a recommendation to the City Council on the adequacy thereof.
Applications for private kennel license and commercial kennel license shall be
placed on the agenda of the City Council for a public hearing at the regular City
Council meeting next following 14 days after the application is received. Not less
than seven (7) days before the date of the public hearing, the City Clerk shall mail
notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the owners of property within 150 feet
of the proposed kennel location. The failure of any owner to receive such notice
shall not invalidate the_proceedings.
6. Council Approval. The City Council may approve the private kennel
license or commercial kennel license and may attach to such approval any conditions
necessary to insure compliance with this ordinance, with Chapter 19 of City
Ordinances, and any other condition necessary to protect the health, safety,
welfare, and property values in the immediate area. The City Council may deny a
private kennel license of a commercial kennel license upon finding that the
establishment of the kennel would constitute a public nuisance, or would adversely
affect the health, safety, welfare or property values of the person residing,
living, or owning property within the immediate area. The form of approval for a
license shall be the resolution of approval, a certified copy of which shall be
forwarded to the applicant.
7. Renewal of License. A copy of the private kennel license or commercial
kennel license shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Inspection who
shall maintain a register of kennel licenses. Subject to anytime limitation set by
the City Council, the license shall be valid for a period of one year and until
October 1 of the then current calendar year and shall be renewable on October 1 of
each year thereafter by the City Clerk upon payment of a renewal license fee set
forth in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances, only in the event no complaint
regarding the kennel's operation has been received during the license year. In the
event that no revocation of the license is made or contemplated by the City Council,
the license shall be renewable as set forth in this subdivision.
1 -105
8. License Revocation. In the event a complaint has been received by City
officials, a report thereof shall be made to the City Council by the Director of
Planning and Inspection and the City Council may direct the applicant to appear to
show cause why the license should not be revoked. A license may be revoked for
violation of this ordinance, Chapter 19 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances, or any
condition imposed at the time of issuance.
Section 1 -106. STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE M1NELS. A private kennel shall
consist of an enclosed space in which all animals are confined when not under
restraint and constructed so as to prevent the animals from running at large.
Provision must be made to provide shelter during inclement weather. Every private
kennel shall be kept in good repair and sha11 be maintained in a clean and sanitary
condition. It shall be unlawful to maintain a private kennel in a way which
constitutes a violation of this ordinance, a nuisance under Chapter 19 of the City
Ordinances, or in violation of any condition imposed by the City Council at the time
the license is granted.
Section 1 -107. STANDARDS FOR CO j1ERCIA.L KEATNELS. All commercial kennels
shall be designed, operated and maintained according to the following standards:
1. Commercial kennel floors and walls shall be constructed of impervious
materials and all structures, areas, and appurtenances shall be designed to
facilitate thorough and convenient cleaning. Commercial kennels shall be
adequately ventilated and all doors, windows, and other openings to the outside
shall be screened, May through October. The commercial kennels shall be provided
with adequate and potable water supplies and shall be equipped with sewer
facilities. Plans for all new commercial kennels and repairs or alterations to
existing commercial kennels must be filed with and approved by the City's Public
Health Sanitarian as a condition of the license.
2. Operating Standards. The licensee, its agents and employees shall
operate and maintain the kennel in accordance with standards set out in Title 9,
Chapter 1 , Subchapter A, Part 3, Section 3.100 through 3.106 of the United States
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a copy of
which is adopted by reference.
Section 1 -108. KEEPING OF DOGS IS LIMITED. No family or family member
shall keep, harbor or have custody of more than two dogs exceeding six months of age
in the family dwelling unit or on the family premises without obtaining a private
kennel license. Provided, however, the said family or family member may obtain a
private kennel license for the purpose of providing a period of time, not to exceed
three years, in which to find a place where the dogs can be legally, safely, and
humanely harbored.
Section 1 -109. KEEPING OF CATS IS LIDTITED. No family or family member
shall keep, harbor or have custody of four or more cats exceeding six months of age in
the family dwelling unit or on the family premises without obtaining a private
kennel license. Provided, however, the said family or family member may obtain a
private kennel license for the purpose of providing a period of time, not to exceed
three years, in which to find a place where the cats can be legally, safely, and
humanely harbored.
Section 1 -110. EUISANCE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any person
1 -110
to keep animals in any unsanitary condition or in any way which constitutes a
nuisance under Chapter 1 of City Ordinances.
Section 1 -111 . RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any
owner to allow its dog to run at large.
Section 1 -112. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. The City Council may provide for
a City nimal Pound either within
Y or outside the corporate limits and may provide
for an Animal Control Officer to enforce this ordinance.
Section 1 -113. ENFORCEMTT PROCEDURES. The Animal Control Officer may
capture and impound any dog running at large, and any unlicensed dog.
Section 1-114. QUARANTINE. Any animal, including wild animals that have
bitten a person shall immediately be impounded for at least 10 days and kept apart
from other animals, under the supervision of a veterinarian, until it is determined
whether such animal had or has a disease which might have been transmitted by such
bite. Such impounding may be done
p b the owner,
g Y and need not be at
Y , the pound
designated ated b
the
City, but
� if it Y o at the designated gnated pound, the owner shall
notify the police department immediately and shall furnish proof in writing that
such animal is being so impounded. Upon the expiration of 10 days, if it is
determined that the animal does not have a disease which might have been transmitted
by such bite, it may be released, and the police department shall be notified
immediately prior to such release by the owner of the animal. If the animal is
impounded at the designated pound, it may be reclaimed as hereinafter provided.
Any animal which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall be killed or impounded and
kept in the same manner for a period of six months; provided that if the animal which
has been bitten by a rabid animal has been vaccinated at least three weeks before
such bite and within one year of such bite and if it is again immediately vaccinated,
then such animal shall be confined or impounded for a period of 40 days before it is
released. The owner of an animal which has been bitten,by a rabid animal shall
notify the police department immediately prior to the release of any such animal.
Section 1 -115 DANGEROUS ANIT1ALS. If an animal is diseased, vicious,
dangerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and such animal cannot be impounded after a
reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to any person or
persons, or if the animal has made more than one attack on a person or persons, such
animal may be immediately killed by or under the direction of a police officer.
Section 1 -116. TREATMENTS DURING IMPOUNDING. Any animal which is
impounded in the designated pound shall be kept in accordance with Section 1 -106 of
this ordinance. If the animal is not known or suspected of being diseased and has
not bitten a person or been bitten by a rabid animal, it shall be kept in the pound for
at least five days, unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If such animal is
known to be or is suspected of being diseased with a disease which might be
transmitted to persons, it shall be kept in the pound for at least 10 days.
Section 1 -117. REMIPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIP -1ALS. Any animal may be
redeemed from the pound by the owner upon payment of the following:
1 . The license fee for the animal, if the license has not previously been
obtained.
2. The late - license penalty, where a license has not been previously
1 -117
3. The amount of the boarding fee which the City is required to pay the
pound keeper.
4. An impounding penalty as provided in Chapter 23 of City Ordinances.
Section 1 -118. DISPOSAL OF UNREDEEMED ANIMALS. The City's designated
pound keeper shall make an effort to contact the owner of any animal which has been
impounded and which has identification on it. If at the end of the impounding _
period the animal is not reclaimed by the owner, such animal shall be deemed to have
been abandoned and may be disposed of or sold to any person following the procedures
contained in Minnesota Statutes 514.93 relating to the sale of unclaimed animals by
veterinarians. If the animal is to be kept in this City, a license shall be obtained
by such person before possession of the animal is given to the purchaser.
Section 1 -119. ABANDONMENT. It shall be unlawful for any person to
abandon any animal, including wild animals in Brooklyn Center.
Section 1 -120. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of this
ordinance, or any conditions of a license shall upon conviction thereof, , be guilty
of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than
J 00 or $7 o
i t
imprisonment for a period not to exceed 90 days, or both, together with the costs of
prosecution. Each day that a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: June 19, 1985
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Kennel License
Attached is the information you requested on the Duerr residence,
6900 Regent Avenue North. rth. In talking o the neighbors, the
g g . Y
indicate they have seen the police department there numerous
times. The records do not indicate this, except I have been
informed by the CEO that they have spent considerable time in the
urea related to the cases attached. It would appear the Duerr's
request for a kennel license is their attempt to resolve the
concern the police department has had with them.
t CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
0 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
File No. 85 - 02126
Outside Offense IED Yes 21�No
Nature of Offense DOG rnm PLAINT
Location of Offense 6900 Regent Ave No. �
Date Reported 2/10/85 Time: 1621
Dote Committed 2 110/85 Time: 1621
Tntnl Value of Loss NONE
Name of Complainant CEO JONES Res. Phone
Address of Complainant Rrc)nkl yn Center Ppl i ne De Bus. Phone 561 -5443
City $ State _ Brooklyn Center, , Mn
Disposition lOUnfounded 20CIrd by Arrest 30Exc Clyd 40Inactive 5X3Othor
Arrests 10Adult 20)uvenile 3C]Both 4[XNone
Officer Assigned to Case: joNES
Transferred t
Supervisor Approved (Disp.): $upr. App. \
Date and Time Repo, Mode 2/10/85 2100
Merle Francis DUERR DOB 6/6/34 MORE THAN TWO DOGS
6900 Regent Ave. No. BC /OR 1 -106
Brooklyn Center, Mn. Citation No. 285 - 033890 -2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 25, 1984, CEO JONES was dispatched to a complaint of three
dogs running at large, at 6901 Quail Ave. No. When CEO JONES arrived in
the area, CEO JONES observed that the dogs lived at 6900 Regent Ave. No.
At that time CEO JONES spoke to the defendant in regards to his dogs run-
ning at large. CEO JONES ADVISED the defendant of the City Ordinances re-
garding more than two dogs, leash laws and ordinances on the dogs to be
licensed. The defendant at that time stated that two of the dogs were his
daughters and that she would be moving from his residence in about a month.
CEO JONES then advised the defendant that he had a month them to comply
with the ordinances.
On February 10, 1985, at approximately 1630 hours, CEO JONES observed three
dogs in the driveway of 6900 Regent Ave. No. CEO JONES THEN proceeded to
speak with the defendant in regards to his three dogs. In speaking with the
defendant JONES advised the defendant that he was receiving a Citation for
having more than two dogs. The defendant did stated that he remembers
speaking with JONES in regards to the same problem in November of 1985.
It should also be noted that CEO NASS DID ADVISE someone at that residence
in regards to having more than two dogs. The Case Number that CEO NASS
responded to is 84- 15264, which occurred on 10/19/84.
SAS
� 3 y
C
"
.9416
�� z 7LI!
� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
Case No. 85 -07481
Outside Offense: Yes No X
Nature of Offense: DOG COMPLAINT #9806
Location of Offense: 6900 Regent Ave. No.
Date Reported: 5/21/85 Time: 1830
Date Committed: _ 5/21/85 Time: 1830
Total Value of Loss: NONE
Name of Complainant: CEO JONES
Address of Complainant: Brooklyn Center Police Departm
City & State: Brooklyn Center, Mn
Res. Phone: Bus. Phone: 561 -5443
Disposition: Unfounded Clyd by Arrest Exc Clyd
Inactive Other X
Arrests: Adult Juvenile Both None X
Officer Assigned to Case: JONES
Transferred to:
Supr. App.
Date and Time Report Made: 5Z21/85 @ 2000
Merle Francis DUERR DOB 6/6/34 MORE THAN TWO DOGS
6900 Regent Ave. No. BC /OR 1 - 106.
Brooklyn Center, Mn. Citation 285 035441-
2
-- ------ ----------------
----- - - - - --
----- -------- - ---- - - - - --
On May 21, 1985 at approximately 1830 hours, CEO JONES stopped at 6900
Regent Ave. No. Upon arrival JONES spoke with the defendant and his
wife in regards to their having more than two dogs.
CEO JONES issued a Citation prior to this offense, on February 10,
1985, in reference to Case No. 85- 02126. The defendant did appear in
Court on the 7th of March 1985 and was given 60 days to comply with the
charge of more than two dogs. The expiration of the 60 days was on the
7th of May 1985.
When CEO JONES spoke with the defendant and his wife on the 21st of
May, 1985, they still had more than two do n the remises. JONE S
was advised s o
9 P
sed b the defendant's ant s wife that on the 22nd of May 1985 they
were oin to
take two 0
9 q f the do which owned b their daughter,
g, are ow e y g r,
to the Humane Society and have them try and find a home for them.
JONES was also shown an application for a Kennel license from the City
of Brooklyn Center.
It should be noted that the application for a Kennel license was not
submitted due to the fact that they were going to take the animals to
the Humane Society. Since the 60 days given by the Court had expired
CEO JONES issued a Citation to the defendant for "More Than Two Dogs ".
JONES
SAS
-
s�
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
Supplementary Report File No.
�r
ature of Offense NOISE ABATEMENT #5312
Location of Offense —n Regent- ATP Nn
Date Reported 4/7 /24 Time 4
Date Committed Time
d� /7 /Rd
Total Value of Loss NQUE
Name of Complainant Of f i c r HE NNE S - S Y Age
First Middle Last
Address of Complainant Rrnnk 1 srn Cent Po 1 ir DP
rDartmPnfi
City and State Rrnnklvn Center Mn
Residence Phone
Business Phone
Telephone
Witness Address Age Residence Business
Sat. WEEKS,
Officer MOEN
Suspect Age Sex Race Ht Wt Bld Clothing Hair
SEE ARREST HEADING
Address Phone Place of Employment Place Frequented
—SEE ARREST uEAnTnTr
Vehicle Make Year Body Style Color License No. ID. Marks
Yes No Yes No Technician Name
Property Inventory } yi Crime Lab
Vehicle Impounded t X J Fingerprints Lifted
[-�
Is Stolen Property Traceable I X I Photos Taken Officer
Victim Hospitalized I X I Where:
tim Deceased 1 X 1 Who Pronounced:
Officer Assigned to Case
H PNNFSSY Transferred to
Supervisor A pproves: Date and Time Report Made 4/ 9/ 8 4 22
SAS
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE
INVESTIGATION REPORT
0 Form 17 NOISE ABATEMENT #5312 84 -05031
Offense
z
Complainant Officer HENNESSY
Address Brooklyn Center Police Department
Page 2 Brooklyn Center, Mn.
Steven Raymond DUERR DOB 9/17/65 NOISE ABATEMENT
6900 Regent Ave. No. BC /OR 19 -1202
Brooklyn Center, Mn. Citation No. 284 - 010375 -4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers were called to 6900 Regent Ave. No. on 4/7/84 at approximately
2310 hours in regards to a loud and noisy party. The complaint on this
particular evening was that there was people all over the yard and that
there were car"less drivers coming and going from the party.
Officers had been to 6900 Regent Ave. No. on 4/6/84 at approximately the
same time for the same complaint. When Officers arrived there were numerous
young people, many of which appeared to be under 18, both in the house and
in the yard and street. Officers went into the home and did end up breaking
up the party, sending approximately forty to fifty young people out of the
0 home in doing so.
Mr. DUERR had indicated to Officers HENNESSY and DIRKS on 4/6/84 that he was
nineteen years of age, however, due to the second complaint officer HENNESSY
demanded some identification and was then notified that the defendant was
only 18 years old. DUERR was informed that he was being cited for Noise
Abatement due to the continuing problem and that should he decide to continue
to have parties throughout the summer that he would be cited for any
additional incidents.
DUERR was basically cooperative and Officers were able to break up the party
without any major incidents.
Signed 7 NNE SSV - Date 4/9/84
SAS
Time i ino
3rooklyn Prig. & Adv. Co. Inc. (612) 5614 -
PROPERTY 114Vl:t,'1'OItY
0
, RREST : Yes =N
J , " ItII:D FROM: BIN
,►
LO.r,TI0;7: IN'1AKE DATE:— �—
J
DFI'ICER(S) ASSIGZ'4r,D
1
CLRSSIFIC`ITION, TYPE:
(;:eld for safe keeping - return to owner immcclici',:cl,') J
EVIL:"NC E (hold pending court disT.osition and /or further investigation)
CO:i:'ISC::^ D (no c.,ar:,es pending- destroy immiediatcly)
I'OU:;D
(owner unkno::n)
(to be red eased .with nrisoncr- )
I, do hereby assert Quantity Denomination Sub Total
a clai:;: for the items dcscri:;ed in
accordance with Chapter T... of the Ordin-
ances of the City of Brcoklyn Center.
Signature Date
Ohone
Address
Total:
U TY
DESCRIPT
Red I
f
19 4 1 7 s
I do hereby acknowledge that I Have received
a Jd jjL o f tne a:r,�v�� n�cn:.i oi:e�i hror�•�r t:y. DATE
AU ;'iIVRI ZED BY: DATE :
I:I: �1:lSIM BY: DATE
ALL ON REPORT
ECI
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT
84 1 5 CALL TVpE
LOCATION ('1 UOC
(�J VEAR
COM PL CJ /
NAME LAST, FIRST, MIDD E
APT,
COMPLAINANT ADDRESS ,^v -' � N
' T�REMRRKS
PHONE
N /
S R
GRID
1 UNIT DIST
I REC / DISP 00 O O CLASS -ID
/'�
�{ p-
iOW ND. •� / V ;3 / AI- C' / TRANS CMND -AREA
F IRE NO, TRANS END
SHIFT CLEARED
RS / 0
ISN
OZ
UOC H2
DIS O
RP ���.�
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Kristin Lee, Public Health Sanitarian
RE: Private Kennel License at 6900 Regent Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for Carolyn Duerr
DATE: June 17, 1985
An inspection was made June 17, 1985, of the Duerr property
at 6900 Regent Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Ms. Duerr has three (3) medium -sized dogs living with her at
this time. Two of the dogs belong to her adult daughter who is
currently living at home.
Two of the dogs spend most of the day leashed to an open
garage. The third dog is leashed to a dog house in the drive-
way. Feces were being removed from the area two times each
week. I did not feel this was sufficient, although the area was
clean during my inspection. Consequently, I suggested daily
cleanup. The owner agreed to this.
The dogs are allowed to run each day in the back yard which
is completely fenced with chain link fencing. The animals sleep
in the house at night.
There did not appear to be a sanitation problem at this
address, although I did detect a faint fecal odor near the drive-
way.
The animals were all clean and seemed healthy. The dogs
barked throughout my outdoor inspection.
I do not foresee any major problems if a Kennel license is
approved at this address.
KAL:jt
June 18, 1985
City of Brooklyn Center City Council,
The city of Brooklyn Center has notified the residents of
Brooklyn Center residing7 in the immediate area of 69th
egent Ave. N. that the part residing at 6900 Regent. Ave. Nand
have y ve applied for a kennel license. ode understand that a kennel lic-
ence allows the holder of suc_a a license to have on the place of
residence a maximum of 5 dogs and 4 cats.
The party residing at 6900 Regent Ave. N. have had 3 dogs
living at their residence the past several months. During_ y
most day-
light hours when someome is home, these dogs are chained outside
in the vicinity of the detached garage at this residence; sometimes
during inclement weather. Previous to this time they have had
2 dogs chained or tied up for most of the time of their residence,
which is for several years. Then chained outside, the dogs have
harassed and irritated the immediate area residents and walkr+rzg
pedestrians on 69th Ave. N. with barking and intent to attack until
restrained by their chains.
Furthermore, Judging by the dogs arrogant behavior we
that they are properly cared for, that is, fed, watered, or
question
exercised properly. We believe that a check of complaints on police
and humame society records will verify this statement.
We voice regret that this subject has surfaced. We all wish be
be compatible with our neighbors, but common sense must be
addressed. The immediate neighborhood involved is compact and
composed of people of varying ages and work habits.
the undersigned residents of 69th and Regent Ave. N Therefore, we
Erooklyn Center find the issuance of a kennel license to
at 6900 Regent Ave. N. totally unacceptable. Party
771
l
1 G 7
�� �L
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
CITY COUNCIL
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Please take notice that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 24, 1985 at approximately
7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
to consider the application described below.
TYPE OF 0DOUEST: Pri va Kennel Ti r-PPse - TTn-b? - ( y Cr , � , ,1 .. i prn,; rec
private kennel license where more than two dogs,
exceeding six months of age, are kept in a household.
APPLICANT: Carolyn E. Duerr
ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: 6900 Regent Avenue North
BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF APPLICATION: Application for a Private
Kennel License to keep three (3) dogs at the residence at 6900 Rec
jent
Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. The Applicant has indicated that the
dogs will be housed inside the residence at 6900 Regent Avenue North.
. Respectfully,
A", 4 -5 �� D
Gerald G. Splinter
City Clerk
June 19, 1985
Dear Mro Splinter,
• This letta r is in regards to the "Notice of Public Hearing" to be
held Monday, June 24th at 7r30pm concerning a request for a Private
Kennel License by Carolyn E. Duerr, 6900 Regent Ave N.
Many of us are unable to attend this meeting, but have a strong
concern a ainst issuance of such a license to this party„ All of us
concerned have lived in the neighborhood 14 or more years and have seen
years of poor to abusive situations concerning dogs at that address.
There has been matters of poor shelter, obvious malnutrition, and
inadaquate exercise for the anima?.s.(An Irish setter was skin and bones
until death and the humane society had been seen there on occassion.)
In the past the dogs have been chained outside in the driveway and bark
all night and during the day as people pass on either side of 69th,
especially at school children walking to and from Willow Lane and North
View Junior High. It is our neighborhood "eyesore ".
It is our opinion this would be a poor situation to grant a kennel
license. do
WP not feel tal
e rt
pa y involved has shown responsibility
in the past towards their property nor their animals. Ide are doubtful
if any major changes would be long term.. A brief inspection by you would
verify this. Please consider our complaint and do not issue a Private
Kernel License. Concerned for the welfare of our neighborhood;
Mr and Mrs Paul Kunnick 6836 Regent Ave N.
Other Concerned Neighborhood Residents .��)�� %v�
1 kJ
`j�� / � /fin- {C__��,_,�- � ^.� ?.. L (� /� - .%C, G"'�c' %'� C J� _Ij �,�. .'•` <' t/G.t''��- ��`'
f �
'7 t
A, j 1
- � t
`J
I
M & C NO. 85 -06
June 7, 1985
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: Proposed Municipal Golf Course
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Attached please find a report from Paul Holmlund to myself relating to the final cost
analysis of the proposed municipal golf course. The Parks and Recreation
Commission has held a couple of hearings, the last of which was earlier this spring,
and is recommending favorable consideration of this project.
Our Finance Director and I are recommending the attached financial plan which
involves a total cost, very conservatively estimated, at $1,100,000. All the funds
would come from the Capital Improvement Projects Fund which is intended for projects
similar to this. $600,000 of the costs would be an appropriation or grant to the
project and $500,000 would be a loan. This loan would be paid back to the Capital
Improvements Fund from golf course revenues. The details of the revenue estimates
are contained in Paul's report. Again, I remind you that the expenses in this
report, we believe, are overestimated and the revenues are underestimated. We have
built in contingencies in each step of the estimating process, and we feel
comfortable that we are presenting you a worst case scenario. Even with this very
conservative approach the project is feasible.
The golf course project proposes to build a par 3, nine hole golf course on the land
adjacent to Lion's Park south of Highway 100 and surrounding our water tower at that
location. It also proposes to relocate the Little League field on the north end of
Lion's Park and reorientate the existing field toward the south end of Lion's Park
and create a new complex for the Little League, which will better serve their needs.
In return for this relocation and redevelopment we have entered into initial
discussions in which the Little League has preliminarily agreed to grant us the land
they now own on the north end of Lion's Park.
We would recommend that a public hearing be held before the City Council on the
proposed golf course project at your next regularly scheduled Council meeting,
which is June 24, 1985.
Respectfully bmitted,
Gerald G. Spli er
City Manaer
enc.
,i
(CCMGCM)
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Department of Finance
DATE: May 8, 1985
SUBJECT: PROPOSED MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
COST ANALYSIS AND FINANCING PLAN
I have attached a Cost Analysis and Financing Plan for the proposed municipal golf
course. This report is based on information contained in the Brauer & Associates
Ltd. Inc. report; memorandums prepared by Gene Hagel, former Director of Parks and
Recreation; and Jim Grube, City Engineer; and suggested changes made orally by you.
In summary, the report shows that the capitalized costs of the proposed par three
golf course are projected to be $1,100,000 and that the costs could be financed by
a direct transfer of $600,000 and a loan of $500,000, both from the City's Capital
Projects Fund. Schedule V of this report shows that, if the loan is approved at
an interest rate of no more then 5 %, then the annual excess of operating income
over expenses will be sufficient to retire the loan in twenty -one years.
The report consists of the following exhibits and schedules:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit A: COST AND FINANCING SUMMARY
Exhibit B: PROJECTED OPERATING INCOME AND EXPENSE BY YEAR
-- - - - - - -- (This exhibit shows projected income and expense for the first
twenty -five years of operations.)
Schedule I: SUMMARY OF CAPITALIZED COSTS AND FINANCING
--- - - - - - -- (This schedule shows the detail of projected costs as stated
in Exhibit A.) ,
Schedule II: PROJECTED ROUNDS AND REVENUES
--- -- - ----- ( This schedule shows the detail of projected revenue as stated
in Exhibit B.)
Schedule III: PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST FULL YEAR
---- -- -- - - -- (This schedule shows the detail of projected operating costs for
the first full year as stated in Exhibit B.)
Schedule IV: PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST ONE -HALF YEAR
- ---- - - - --- (This schedule shows the detail of projected operating costs for
the first one -half year as stated in Exhibit B.)
Schedule V: LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE
---- - - - - -- ( This schedule shows that the annual excess of income over
expense, as shown in Exhibit B, would be sufficient to pay the
principal and interest on a $500,000 loan from the Capital
Projects Fund and retire the debt in twenty -one years.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul W. Holmlund
Director of Finance
(CCMGCFS) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Exhibit A
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985 - - - --
COST AND FINANCING SUMMARY
- - -- - -- ---- - - - --- - - - - - --
CAPITALIZED COSTS: (Schedule I)
Real Estate:
Land Development $ 518,800
Club House and Parking 325,300
Little League Modification 112,700
Total Real Estate $ 956,800
Personal Property:
Maintenance Equipment 48,800
Equipment for Rental 2,200
Other Equipment 44,030
Total Personal Property 95,030
Inventory (Merchandise for Resale) 8,000
Start -up Costs 30,000
Contingency 10,170
Total Capitalized Costs $ 1,100,000
FINANCING:
Direct Transfer from Capital Projects Fund $ 600,000
Loan from Capital Projects Fund (Schedule V) 500,000
$ 1,100,000
(CCMGCIE) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Exhibit B
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985
PROJECTED INCOME AND EXPENSE BY YEAR
--- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - - - - -- -- - - --
Annual Cumulative
Income Over Income Over
Year Rounds Income Expense Expense Expense
- - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- -------- - - - - --
1987 12,500 $ 58,125 $ 77,800 $ - 19,675 $ - 19,675
1988 25,000 122,500 112,270 10,230 -9,445
1989 27,000 132,300 119,006 13,294 3,849
1990 29,000 149,350 126,147 23,203 27,052
1991 30,000 154,500 133,715 20,785 47,837 5 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992 32,000 172,800 141,738 31,062 78,899
1993 34,000 183,600 150,243 33,357 112,256
1994 35,000 206,500 159,257 47,243 159,499
1995 35,000 206,500 168,813 37,687 197,186
1996 36,000 230,400 178,941 51,459 248,645 10 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 36,000 230,400 189,678 40,722 289,367
1998 37,000 255,300 201,058 54,242 343,609
1999 37,000 255,300 213,122 42,178 385,787
2000 38,000 281,200 225,909 55,291 441,077
2001 38,000 281,200 239,464 41,736 482,814 15 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 39,000 327,600 253,832 73,768 556,582
2003 39,000 347,100 269,062 78,038 634,620
2004 40,000 376,000 285,205 90,795 725,415
2005 40,000 396,000 302,318 93,682 819,097
2006 40,000 416,000 320,457 95,543 914,641 20 Years
----- ----------------------------------- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
- -- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
-- - - - - --
2007 40,000 436,000 339,684 96,316 1,010,957
2008 40,000 436,000 360,065 75,935 1,086,892
2009 40,000 456,000 381,669 74,331 1,161,223
2010 40,000 476,000 404
56 1
9 71 43 1,232,653
2011 40,000 496,000 428,843 67,157 1,299,810 25 Years
----------- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - --
- -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
- - - - --
TOTALS 879,500 $ 7,082,675 $ 5,782,865 $ 1,299,810 $ 1,299,810
,(CCMGCCC) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule I
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985
SUMMARY OF CAPITALIZED COSTS AND FINANCING
--- - - - -- - -- --- - - - - --
CAPITALIZED - COSTS
Construction Consultant City Engin- City Admini-
Item Costs + 10% Fees eering Fees strative Fees Total
------------------- - - - --- ----- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
Land Development $ 475,900 $ 33,300 $ 4,800 $ 4,800 $ 518,800
Club House /Parking 298,400 20,900 3,000 3,000 325,300
Little League Modification 101,900 2,500 7,500 800 112,700
---------- ------ - - - - -- ---------- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
Total Real Estate 876,200 56,700 15,300 8,600 956,800
---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
Maintenance Equipment:
Greens Mower - 1 New 10,000
Greens Mower - 1 Used 5,000
Fairway Mower 15,000
Aerator 4,500
Topdresser 3,500
Drag Mat 200
Fertilizer Spreader 100
Hand Mowers (3) 1,500
Soil Shredder 1,000
Utility Vehicle 6,000
Caddy Cart 1,000
Miscellaneous Tools 1,000
Total Maintenance Equipment ~- _ - 48,800
Clubs, 10 sets @ $120 each 1,200
Pull Carts, 20 @ $50 each 1,000
i
Total Equipment For Rental 2,200
Flags and Poles 280
Cups 75
Tee Markers 120
Tee Plaques 300
Ball Washers 360
Hole Cutter 80
Cup Setter and Puller 35
Shoe Spike Brushes 80
Rule Signs 200
Receptacles and Benches 500
Club House Concessions Equipment 10,000
Club House Furniture and Fixtures 15,000
Miscellaneous 17,000
- w- --
Total Other Equipment 44,030
Total Personal Property r - - 95,030
Inventory (Merchandise for Resale) 8,000
Start -up Costs 30,000
0- Contingency 10,170
Total Capitalized Costs 1,100,000
LESS DIRECT TRANSFER FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND - 600,000
AMOUNT TO BE BORROWED FROM CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND $ 500,000
(CCMGCRR) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule II
----- - - - - --
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1 1985
PROJECTED ROUNDS AND REVENUES
---- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- -- - - - - --
Other Income
Number of Green Green Fee @ $.40 Per Total
Year Rounds Fees Revenue Round (Net) Revenue
- - --- ---- - - - --- ------ - - - --- ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
1987 12,500 $ 4.25 $ 53,125 $ 5,000 $ 58,125
1988 25,000 4.50 112,500 10,000 122,500
1989 27,000 4.50 121,500 10,800 132,300
1990 29,000 4.75 137,750 11,600 149,350
1991 30 , 000 4.75 4
7 1 2,500 12,000 154,500
1992 32,000 5.00 160,000 12,800 172,800
1993 34,000 5.00 170,000 13,600 183,600
1994 35,000 5.50 192,500 14,000 206,500
1995 35,000 5.50 192,500 14,000 206,500
1996 36,000 6.00 216,000 14,400 230,400
1997 36 ,000 6.00 216,000 14,400 230,400
1998 37,000 6.50 240,500 14,800 255,300
1999 37,000 6.50 240,500 14,800 255,300
2000 38 ,000 7.00 266,000 15,200 281,200
2001 38,000 7.00 266,000 15,200 281,200
2002 39,000 8.00
i 12 000 1 00
3 5 6 327
2003 39,000 - 8-50 5 331,500 15,600 3 47,100
2004 40,000 9.00 360,000 16,000 3 76000
2005 40,000 9.50 380,000 16,000 396,000
2006 40,000 10.00 400,000 16,000 416,000
2007 7 000 10. 0
� 5 420,000 16,000 436,000
2008 40,000 10.50 420,000 16,000 436,000
2009 40,000 11.00 440,000 16, 000 456
2010 40,000 11.50 460,
000 1 6,000 476,000
2011 40,000
12.00 480,000
16,000 496
- - - - -- ----- - - - --- ------ - - - --- ------- - - - - --
TOTALS 879,500 $ 6, 7 30,875 $ 351,800 $ 7,082,675
(CCMGFOC2) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule III
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985
PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST FULL YEAR
--- - - - - -- --- - - ---- - - - -- - - - ---- - - -- - - --
PERSONAL SERVICES:
--------------- --
Salaries - Regular Employees $ 33,600
Salaries - Temporary Employees 35,000
PERA 1,900
Social Security 2,500
--- - - - - -- $
Total Personal Services 73,000
SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE:
----------------------------------
Office Supplies 400
Operating Supplies, General 5,000
Chemicals and Chemical Products 6,400
Landscape Materials and Supplies 5,000
Motor Fuels 2,000
Small Tools 200
Equipment Parts 400
Equipment Repairs 600
Total Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance s -- 20,000
COMMUNICATIONS:
Telephone 1 X 200
Postage 300
- --- - - - - --
Total Communications 1,500
UTILITIES:
Electric Service 1,200
Gas Service 1,000
Water 2,000
Waste Disposal 500
Total Utilities 4,700
OTHER DISBURSEMENTS:
-------------------
Insurance 4,500
Total Other Disbursements - -- 4,500
CAPITAL OUTLAY:
Equipment Replacement 5,000
Total Capital Outlay 5,000
CONTINGENCY (10% of Non - Personnel Costs):
3,570
----------------------------------------
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: $ 112,270
(CCMGFOC1) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE Schedule IV
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985
PROJECTED OPERATING COSTS - FIRST ONE -HALF YEAR
PERSONAL SERVICES:
Salaries - Regular Employees $ 32,200
Salaries - Temporary Employees 20
PERA 1,300
Social Security 2
Total Personal Services $ 55,800
SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, AND MAINTENANCE:
----------------------------------
Office Supplies 300
Operating Supplies, General 2
Chemicals and Chemical Products 500
Landscape Materials and Supplies 4
Motor Fuels 1,500
Small Tools 300
Equipment Parts 300
Equipment Repairs 400
-- - -
Total Supplies, Repairs, and Maintenance 9,800
COMMUNICATIONS:
Telephone 1 X 200
Postage 300
Total Communications F - 1,500
UTILITIES:
Electric Service 1,500
Gas Service 1,300
Water 19500
Waste Disposal 400
--- - - - - --
Total Utilities 4,700
OTHER DISBURSEMENTS:
-------------------
Insurance 4,000
Total Other Disbursements - - - 4,000
CONTINGENCY (10% of Non - Personnel Costs): 2,000
-------------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - --
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES: $ 77,800
------------------ - - - - -- --- - - - - --
(CCMGCLS) BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
PROJECTIONS AS OF MAY 1, 1985
LOAN AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE Schedule V
- - -- ------ - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
(ASSUMING THAT LOAN WILL BE PAID AS FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE)
Loan Amount: $ 500,000
Annual Interest Rate: 5%
--------------- - - - --
Term: (Years) 21
Beginning Ending
Principal Annual Annual Interest Principal Unpaid Principal
Year Balance Interest Payment Paid Paid Interest Balance
- - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
1 500,000 $ 25,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 25,000 $ 525,000
2 525,000 26,250 0 0 0 26,250 551,250
3 551,250 27,563 4,000 4,000 0 23,563 574,813
4 574,813 28,741 23,000 23,000 0 5,741 580,553
5 580,553 29,028 21,000 21,000 0 8,028 588,581
6 588,581 29,429 31,000 29,429 1,571 0 587,010
7 587,010 29,350 33,000 29,350 3,650 0 583,360
8 583,360 29,168 47,000 29,168 17,832 0 565,528
9 565,528 28 276 8 000 28,276
3 24 0
, 9 0
,7 555,8 5
10 555,805 27,790 51,000 27,790 23,210 0 532,595
11 532,595 26,630 41,000 26,630 14,370 -0 518,225
12 518,225 25,911 54,000 25,911 28,089 0 490,136
13 490,136 24,507 42,000 24,507 17,493 -0 472,643
14 4 72,643 23,632 55,000 23,632. 31,368 0 441,275
15 441,275 22,064 42,000 22,064 19,936 -0 421,339
16 421,339 21 06 4 000
,339 7 7 21, 067 52 0 6 40
,933 3 8, 6
17 368,406 18,420 78,000 18,420 59,580 0 308,826
18 308,826 15,441 91,000 15,441 75,559 0 233,267
1 2
9 33,267 11 ,663 94,000 11 ,663 82,337 0 150 r �
II I 20 150, - r
7,547 95,000 7,547 87,453 0 63,477
21 63,477 3,174 66,651 3,174 63,477 -0 -0
-
$ 480,651 $ 980,651 $ 392,069 $ 588,582
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 19, 1985
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Commission met in regular session and was
called to order by Chairman Sorenson at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Bloomstrand, Skeels, Peterson and Manson. Also
present were Councilmember Bill Hawes, City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of
Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel, Recording Secretary Tom Bublitz and Mr. Paul Fjare
of Brauer and Associates.
STAFF PRESENTATION OF GOLF COURSE PROJECT
The City Manager noted that the research work on the golf course was in a preliminary
stage since the City did not want to spend a great amount of money on the project
before public input was received. He emphasized that the project is in a
feasibility stage.
The City Manager then reviewed the history of the proposal for a golf course at the
Lions Park West site. He explained there was a concern over what the potential
development in the area could be and noted that apartments or some other type of
housing was possible on the site. He explained there was a particular concern since
approximately 60% of the property is in the flood plain. He added that any
development proposed for the area must consider the flood plain when developing.
He then explained that the former owner of the property approached the City
regarding purchase of the property and after consideration by the Park and
Recreation Commission and City Council the City purchased the land for a possible
park use and also to control the flood plain. In summary the reasons for the City
purchasing the property was to control the flood lain and also to provide an
P p
opportunity to influence development of the parcel since it was in a critical area.
He then reviewed the feasibility work which had been done on the project and which
had led up to the Park and Recreation Commission establishing this evenings public
hearing.
The City Manager then reviewed a site map of the area showing the proposed golf
course project and pointed out that the project involves relocating the existing
Little League fields. He explained that this had been discussed with the Brooklyn
Center Little League and that a preliminary plan had been worked out to relocate the
fields. He then introduced Mr. Paul Fjare of Brauer and Associates, and explained
that Mr. Fjare's company had prepared the preliminary site plan for the golf course.
Mr. Fjare reviewed the golf course plan and noted the preliminary approval by the
Little League for the relocation of the existing Little League fields. He
explained that with the relocation the fields will have a better north -south
orientation and there will be an overall improved control over the ball fields. He
then continued his review of the site plan pointing out the proposed location of the
clubhouse, putting green and the nine holes of the course. Mr. Fjare then reviewed
2 -19 -85 -1-
i
the permit process required by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. He explained the Corp was concerned with not harming the flood
plain and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was concerned with the preservation of
wildlife in the area. He noted that the preliminary plan had received approval from
both agencies.
The City Manager then briefly reviewed the traffic analysis studies done by the
City's Engineering Department and explained that the detailed analysis is available
for questions later in the meeting. He then reviewed the proposed financing for the
project and noted that the approximate cost is $1 million dollars. He noted there
were three possible approaches to financing such a project including revenue bonds,
general obligation bonds and internal bonds. He explained that the feasibility
study has shown that the project could generally pay for itself within a 15 to 20 year
period. He pointed out that one of the problems in external financing is the
current poor market for bonds with the interest rates being at a prohibitive level.
He explained that if the project is to be approved the staff recommendation is to
borrow funds internally from the City's Capital Projects Fund. In summary the City
Manager pointed out that the cost estimates along with the revenue projections for
the project are quite conservative. He explained the estimates were developed
partially by reviewing the actual costs of similar courses in New Hope and
Roseville. He explained the course proposed is a Par 3 course and past experience
in other cities has shown that such courses attract a significant number of elderly,
youth and women golfers. He added that golfers who want the 18 hole long course will
of course not use this course.
The City Manager stated that should the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the
project it would then proceed to the City Council and they would also hold a public
hearing on the golf course project. He added that there would be more detail work to
be done on the feasibility study should the Park and Recreation Commission act
favorably on the project. _ He explained that if the project is approved the project
could begin as early as the fall of 1985 and that the earliest opening would be in
1987.
QUESTIONS FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Park and Recreation Commission members generally decided to hold their
questions until later in the evening to allow the audience an opportunity to speak at
the public hearing. Commissioner Bloomstrand did however ask the City Manager what
the size of the proposed clubhouse would be. The City Manager explained that the
clubhouse is proposed at approximately 2,000 square feet which is somewhere in
between the clubhouse sizes at New Hope and Roseville.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairmam Sorenson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the
proposed golf course project and recognized Mr. Larry Propst, 5344 Russell Avenue
North. Mr. Propst stated that he believed the golf course proposal was an "idiotic"
plan considering a number of factors, including the flood plain and wildlife, in the
area. He questioned why the City should go to all the expense of building a golf •
course when courses are readily available in the area. Also, he stated that he did
not think it was efficient to move -the Little league fields and that the proposed
parking should be put closer to the clubhouse. He added that he cannot understand
why the City would want to undertake the project and would like to know if a survey of
City residents was taken with regard to the plan. The City Manager stated that a
survey was done a number of years ago on Park and Recreation facilities and that golf
courses were one of the items mentioned in the survey. He reviewed the parking
2 -19 -85 -2-
philosophy developed in conjunction with the site plan and noted that the goal was to
keep the parking off the street. Mr. Propst then stated that he thought the parking
should be located in the area now designated for general skating since there is not
much skating done in that area anyway. Mr. Propst then expressed a concern that the
parking area was too large and that the City should not tear down the existing ball
fields given the fact that they would have to be rebuilt. He also noted the negative
affect of the project on wildlife in the area. With regard to the project's affect
on wildlife the City Manager explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
initially rejected the first plan and then accepted a revised plan which allowed for
more protection of the wildlife in the area. He then reviewed a transparency
scale b which the area was rated for wildlife p Y of
Y protection. Mr. Propst then
expressed his belief that the course would be a maintenance problem due to its
location in the flood plain. The City Manager explained that golf courses are often
built on this type of land particularly since other uses would not be acceptable in a
flood plain.
In i response to a question p q ton from Mr. Larry Lang the City Manager explained that the 100
year flood is a theoretical design level which takes into account that major floods
tend to occur approximately every 100 years.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mrs. Jean Messersmith, 5340 Queen Avenue North. Mrs.
Me33ersmith stated that she believes Brooklyn Center is more of a blue collar
neighborhood and wondered if it was fair to compare the population to New Hope and
Roseville. She expressed a concern about the internal financing of the golf course
project especially with regard to the deficit at the Federal level and the potential
for that being passed down to the local level. She also expressed a concern about
the traffic flow particularly with regard to children in the area. She reviewed the
areas existing traffic problem including a blind corner at Lilac Drive, speeding in
the area and the general "tangle town" maze of traffic in the area. She then noted
that parking in the area is definitely needed particularly for Little League games
and added that she believes there may not be enough parking shown on the plan for the
golf course and Little League activities. She added that in her opinion she does
not see a lot of elderly people using this and also suggested that a needs assessment
on the olf course r
g project be undertaken. In response to Firs. Messersmiths
comments the City Manager stated that the City of New Hope is virtually built up in a
similar fashion to Brooklyn Center and that it is the thought that this course would
parallel the New Hope course in many ways. He explained that there is generally a
shortage of golf courses indicated in the northwest area and that he believed New
Hope and Roseville are really not that different in population makeup from Brooklyn
Center. He explained that it is true the elderly in their 70'3 and 80's would
probably not use the project but the 55 and up age group would more than likely be
attracted to a Par 3 golf course. With regard to the cost of the project he
explained that there is not much in the area of recreation that can pay for itself
completely and cited the example of swimming pools and ice arenas. Golf courses he
pointed out, are different situations and can pay for themselve over a period of
time. He explained that currently bonds are at a 137- to 14% interest rate which is a
prohibitively high rate. He explained the interest on the funds borrowed to build
the project would not be lost and that a fair return on the money would be received.
He explained this could be undertaken no matter what happens to the deficit at the
Fedeeal Level. The City Manager then reviewed the traffic counts in the area
including the winter time and summer time traffic projections which show a traffic
count before and after the proposed golf course. He added that the projects assumed
every golfer came to the course in a separate car and that generally golf course
traffic is not a peaking type of traffic and is weather sensitive.
2 -19 -85 -3-
ti
Chairman Sorenson recognized a member of the audience who identified himself as
living on Ericon Drive, and commented that he did not see the traffic as a problem and
added that he was in favor of the golf course project. He inquired of the City
Manager as to how the Little League transfer would be accomplished. The City
Manager expalined that it would be possible for the Little League to give the deed to
the property to the City and the City would grant a long term lease for the facilities
to the Little League. Mr. Tom Shinneck, 5324 Oliver Avenue North, president of the
National Little League commented that he believed the project was a tremondous deal
for the Little League and that the present field is a maintenance problem. He
pointed out that the project would provide brand new facilities for both the major
and minor leagues.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Tony Miller who stated that he believed the only
comparable course in the area was located in Dayton and that he does not think there
is a comparable Par 3 in the area. He added that he believes Brooklyn Center needs
this golf course.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mrs. Linda Erikksen who stated that she lives on 55th
Avenue North between Oliver and Penn. She stated that she believes the information
distributed on the golf course could have been done differently since the flyer did
not give a location of the proposed course. She expressed a concern that the area at
the bottom of the sliding ill
� would be reduced and that sliding would not work with
this distance shortened. She also expressed concern with regard to the
accessibility of the pedestrian bridge over Highway 100. The City Manager stated
that the plan would assure that no obstacles would be put in to obstruct the sliding
hill and that the project should not affect the accessibility to the pedestrian
crossing. Mrs. Erikksen then expressed a concern that if the golf course is
developed the land would be used by a limited few and not be able to be used by the
rest of the residents. The City Manager stated
that generally ot all r ecreation
Y g g
Y
facilities are used by all _people noting that only certain people play tennis, use
nature trails, basketball etc. He then reviewed the area of land and the project
area which was left out of the golf course and indicated that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has insisted that as many wild areas as possible be left in the
project.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Jerry Sullivan, 613t and Kyle who stated that he is
in favor of the golf course project. He stated that he lives next to Kylawn Park
which is a wildlife area and indicated that he would be willing to drive to use the
golf course so he believed other residents should be able to drive to visit the
nature areas in the City.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Lewis Hedlund, 5320 Russell Avenue North who
stated that he does not like the traffic situation in the area or the potential
parking problem created by relocating the Little League field. He added that he is
indifferent to the golf course project but does not like the idea of moving the
Little League field.
L L
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. John Russell who stated that he lives in the 5300
block of Lilac Drive. Mr. Russell asked how high the fence would be in front of his
home if the project were built. The City Manager replied that it is the intention to
leave as much of the existing growth in the area as possible to act as the screen for
residences. He added he believed this screening would provide adequate
separation.
2 -19 -85 -4-
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Frank Slovak who stated that he resides at 55th and
Oliver. Mr. Slovak stated that since the proposed course is only a Par 3 golf course
he believed it would be difficult if ult to make a profit on the course, especially if
senior citizens are given lower rates which is typical at other golf courses in the
area. He added that the City of New Hope has extended some of the fairways on their
course but that in this course the fairways could not be lengthened.
With regard to notice of the golf course project the City Manager noted that the City
Manager's Newsletter contained an article on the golf course project and that
articles were also in the Brooklyn Center Post. He added that perhaps the City may
rely to heavily on the Post for notification and that they will try to do a better job
of notifying the residents in the future.
Chairman Sorenson recognized a member of the audience residing at 53rd and Lilac
Drive who asked how the project would affect property values in the area. The City
Manager explained that the project should not affect values too much and that if a
persons backyard is located on a golf course generally this would increase property
values. Generally, he pointed out that residents could not count on an increase but
also certainly should not expect a decrease in property values.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Del Erikksen residing at 55th Avenue North between
Oliver and Penn. Mr. Erikksen stated that he believes the relocation of the Little
League field was a "sweetheart deal" and that the two new diamonds and parking lot
are being built at taxpayer expense. He stated that he believes the location of the
project and the golf course will result in several fairways being wet and that in his
opinion the only solution is to ditch and dike the area. He added that he does not
believe there is a great demand for golf courses in the area especially considering
the blue collar nature of Brooklyn Center. He added it is appalling that funds
would be taken from the Capital Projects Fund for an "adult playground" and added
that it is inappropriate to shift funds for this type of expense. He stated that he
moved to Brooklyn Center because the City had a lot of parks and natural areas and
that they are being destroyed by development. He added he believes this area is a
jewel of a natural resource. He stated he believes the golf course will be fenced
off from the community and that the area will be lost or off limits to most people for
six to eight months of the year and open to only a few so that no one would be able to
appreciate it.
The City Manager explained that the acquisition of the Little League's property is
worth about the same as the improvement received by the Little League. He explained
that the Little League is giving the land to the City and that they are not giving
something or getting something for nothing. Also, he pointed out that with regard
to financing, industrial development revenue bonds are not appropriate to this type
of project and that the City's Capital Improvements Fund is designed to be used for
projects like this and that these funds have been used for park construction
projects in the past. He then noted that most development in an area is contingent
upon private initiative and that the City cannot completely control development.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Ms. Irnee McCarther, 55th and Oliver who stated that
she thinks Brooklyn Center stands out as the "something more" city and complimented
the City on handling the public hearing in the manner they are. She added that she
likes the idea of a golf course appealing to the middle aged person and that her main
concern was the traffic situation, especially the traffic on Logan, meaning those
cars turning at 57th onto Logan rather than making a right turn at Warners Hardware.
The City Manager stated he agrees that the corner at 57th and Logan and the entrances
2 -19 -85 -5-
' J
to Northbrook are problems and, although this has not been a top priority traffic
issue, it should be reviewed.
Ms. McCarther also pointed out that the Super America station was proposed to the
City as a family business and that in her opinion the current types of magazines sold
at the station are not appropriate for a family business.
Chairman Sorenson recognized a member of the audience residing at 53rd and Logan who
stated that he likes the idea of a golf course in the area, and that the City has spent
a lot of money on parks and that he thinks a golf course would be a nice addition.
Chairman Sorenson recognized a member of the audience who identified himself as
living at 55th and Russell Avenue North, and stated that he believes the traffic
problems in the area are the result of teenagers and not problems related to Little
League traffic. He added that in over 20 years since he has lived at his home there
has never been a flood in the area.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Mike Cant, 53rd and Newton Avenue North who stated
that he believes golf is also a younger persons sport and that he thinks the course
would help the youth in the area.
Chairman Sorenson recognized a member of the audience who identified himself as
living at 53rd and Logan Avenue North and who stated that he believes the golf course
is a good idea and does not think the traffic will be a problem. He added that he
believes the young people living in the neighborhood are the ones creating the
traffic problem.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Don Lawrence, 63rd and Orchard Avenue North. Mr.
Lawrence stated that he believes the golf course would attract a lot of people and in
addition golfers also enjoy nature.
Chairman Sorenson again recognized Mr. Larry Propst, 5344 Russell Avenue North.
Mr. Propst inquired as to the cost of reconstructing the Little League fields. The
City Manager replied the cost would be betwen $75,000 and $30,000 to move the fields
including parking. Mr. Propst stated that he does not know what there is to gain by
moving the fields and suggested again putting the parking in the general skating
area. He then inquired whether the City would survey the community regarding their
desires as to a need for a golf course.
The City Manager noted that a survey on park facilities had been done in the past but
that the Park and Recreation Commission may want to consider this issue.
Mr. Propst stated that he believes it would almost be a certainty that the holes on
fairways one and two would be flooded. Mr. Paul Fjare of Brauer and Associates
explained that five years ago the metropolitan cities experienced two 100 years
floods. He explained that the tees and greens would have to be constructed
physically higher than the 100 year flood level. He stated that fairways must be
used for storage of the 100 year flood level and that the intent would be to elevate
the fairways to accomodate the 25.- 50 year flood levels.
Mr. Propst then expressed a concern regarding the safety of traffic on Highway 100
with regard to golf balls hitting cars. Mr. Fjare stated that the predominant
problem among golfers is a slice and not a hook and this would direct balls away from
Highway 100. He explained that the Highway 100 traffic is going with the flow of the
2 -19 -85 -6- -
ball but that he is not saying it couldn't happen but it is very unlikely to create
any problems with regard to cars. He added that the intent is to achieve control
over safety problems by planting additional trees.
Chairman Sorenson then recognized Mr. Tom Shinneck who stated that he would like to
address a statement made by Mr. Del Erikksen earlier in the meeting. He stated that
the Little League fields are not for the exclusive use of the Little League and that
the Little League officials do not get paid for their involvement in Little League.
He pointed out that the City Manager approached him regarding the fields and stated
that the decision was strictly up to the Little League. He added that he believes
the gentleman making the statement regarding the arrangements between the City and
the Little League should not make statements without knowing the structure of the
Little League organization.
Mrs. Jean Messersmith inquired as to the populations of New Hope and Roseville in
relation to Brooklyn Center. The City Manager replied that Roseville Is population
is betwen 38,000 and 40,000, New Hope's is approximately 25,000 and Brooklyn
Center's population is 31,000. Mrs. Messersmith then encouraged the Commission to
do a needs assessment survey of the City with regard to golf courses. She then
inquired if any other uses for the area had been considered. The City Manager
replied that this area had never been considered for parks such as the Arboretum or
Central Park or the Palmer Lake Nature Area.
A resident who identified himself as living on Ericon Drive commented that if the
golf course is not approved it could be sold to private interests and sold for
commercial and industrial development.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Ms. Shirley Block who identified herself as living
across the street from the clubhouse parking. Ms. Block inquired as to whether
liquor would be available in the clubhouse. The City Manager pointed out that the
only consideration for any alcoholic beverages is for 3.2 beer to be sold at the
clubhouse. He explained that other courses in the area sold 3.2 beer and that it had
not been a problem at these courses.
Chairman Soreson recognized Mrs. Torkelson, 53rd and Lilac Drive. Mrs. Torkelson
inquired as to who residents should address their concerns to other than the Park and
Recreation Commission this evening. The City Manager replied that any concerns
should be made in writing to the City Manager's Office and that he would relay these
to the Council. He added that he would also notify residents of any Council action
on the project.
Mrs. Irnee McCarther inquired as to what revenue the 3.2 beer sales would produce.
The City Manager replied that the sale of 3.2 beer is not a major revenue producer but
is a popular item with golfers.
Chairman Sorenson inquired if there was anyone else 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 Commissioner Skeels and seconded by Commissioner Bloomstrand
to close the public hearing on the proposed golf course project. The motion passed
unanimously.
Chairman Sorenson commented that the Commission would hold an additional meetin g in
2 -19 -85 -7-
March to discuss the project. The City Manager stated that the staff would look at
some of the questions raised this evening and respond back to the Commission at their
March meeting. The Chairman noted that the next regularly scheduled Park and
Recreation Commission meeting is scheduled for March 19. He added that there are
problems with Commission members not being able to attend the March 19 meeting and
suggested that the next meeting be held on March 26, 1985 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers. There was a Commission consensus to set the next meeting of the
Commission at March 26, 1985 and to discuss the golf course proposal at that meeting.
Commissioner Skeels inquired whether there was any possibility that a needs
assessment survey could be accomplished. The City Manager stated that a survey
could be done but he did not know how valid it would be at this point.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Manson and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Park and
Recreation Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Chairman
2 -19 -85 -8-
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 2, 1985
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Sorenson, Commissioners Bloomstrand, Skeels, Peterson and Manson. Also
present were Councilmember Bill Hawes, City Manager Gerald Splinter, Deputy City
Clerk Tom Bublitz, Director of Recreation Arnie Mavis and Mr. Paul Fjare
representing Brauer and Associates.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 19, 1985
There was a motion by Commissioner Skeels and seconded by Commissioner Manson to
approve the minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of February 19,
1985 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
REVIEW OF GOLF COURSE PROPOSAL FOR LIONS PARK WEST AREA
The City Manager noted he had received four letters regarding the golf course
proposal, three in favor and one opposed to the golf course. He stated he would
begin his presentation this evening by addressing and reviewing the questions
raised at the public hearing held by the Park and Recreation Commission.
He proceeded to review a transparency titled Centerbrook Golf Course Financial Data
which showed an estimated project cost of 1 million dollars with $600,000 being
appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund and $400,000 as a loan to''the Golf
_
Course Enterprise Fund. Additional financial information included in the
transparency was the fact that the Roseville and New Hope golf course experience was
used to develop revenue and expense projections. Expenses assume a 6% inflation
rate and revenue has been conservatively estimated both as to cost per round and
number of rounds. The initial cost per round is estimated at $1.25. The
transparency also addressed the Brauer feasibility study which stated that there is
and will be a shortage of Par 3 golf courses in the Brooklyn Center area and that
projected revenue is exceeds expense sufficiently to finance a Capital Improvement
Fund loan. Finally, the transparency indicated that all existing metro area Par 3
municipal golf courses are financially successful. He added that in approximately
15 years the 1.5 million dollar loan, both principal and interest payment, would be
made.
The City Manager then reviewed a transparency showing the location of other golf
courses in the metropolitan area and noted that, according to national standards,
there is a shortage of courses in the area.
The City Manager then reviewed the golf course layout and noted that moving the
parking lot would put the parking lot on one of the few areas with good soils. With
regard to the survey issue he pointed out that a professional survey of residents
regarding their preference for or against the golf course would cost approximately
$10,000 and that the validity of any survey would increase with amount of money spent
on it.
4 -2 -85 - _1_
The City Manager then reviewed a transparency showing the analysis of the wildlife
habitat in the golf course project area both before and after the construction. He
explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated that the overall
habitat value of the golf course would increase after development.
With regard to the blue collar issue the City Manager pointed out that interest shown
by people in the golf course demonstrates that golf is now a sport that is enjoyed by
persons of various occupations and income levels.
The City Manager then addressed the fairway flooding issue and requested Mr. Paul
Fjare to comment. Mr. Fjare stated that the 100 year flood level will impact on the
course; however, the proposal is to raise the tees and greens and clubhouse out of
the 100 year flood level. He pointed out the flood can damage the grass and tee
areas and that an allowance for this has been put into the maintenance and management
costs of the course. He added that the flooding potential situation is not a unique
situation on this proposed course.
The City Manager then addressed the issue of funding of the golf course regarding
relationship to federal and state deficits. He pointed the golf course would have
no affect on state and federal funds and that financing of the appropriation portion
of the golf course would be obtained from land sales of other public property.
Generally, he commented it is not advisable policy to use capital or one time funds,
such as might be received from state or federal governments, to use for an operating
budget.
He also addressed g d essed the issue of the use of the golf course by older persons
and noted that the term elderly in this case would imply persons 55 and over. He
pointed out the discount to elderly golfers has not had any significant affect on the
revenue of other golf courses in the area and usually the discount is given during
off peak hours.
The City Manager then addressed the issue of the transfer of the land from the Little
League and noted that the Little League organization provides a service to the
community which the City would probably have to fund if the Little League did not
exist. He added that the land donation by the Little League essentially equals the
City's contribution to build the fields and maintain the ballfields. He then
reviewed the rationale for moving the Little League fields noting that the reason
for moving the fields is so that both fields can use the pressbox, one concession
stand and generally run a more efficient operation.
The City Manager then addressed the issue of the affect of the golf course on
property values and explained that the City Assessor has indicated that, with regard
to values he would treat a golf course similar to a park, which means that
essentially there would be no decrease in property value but only a small increase in
assessed value. He added that experience shows that homes located next to a golf
course can sell faster than similar homes in other locations. The City Manager also
noted that liquor at the clubhouse was discussed at the public hearing and he
commented that all other golf courses in the area have 3.2 beer at their clubhouses
and none have had any problems with regard to the sale of 3.2 beer.
The City Manager then reviewed a transparency showing actual and projected traffic
counts related to the golf course construction. The proejcted counts demonstrated
an increase in trips per day in the project area; however, there was not a dramatic
increase in the number of vehicles per day and it was also pointed out that golf
course traffic does not have peak traffic times but is a more even flow throughout
the day. Commissioner Bloomstrand inquired as to the 100 year flood level and how
many inches of rain this would comprehend. The City Manager explained that the 100
year flood level is a theoretical level which could be realized from rain, spring
4 -2 -85 -2-
run -off or other causes. Mr. Paul F jare commented that the 100 year flood level is
connected to water in the entire watershed area. The City Manager added that the
level is based on Army Corps of Engineer studies and designations in the flood plain.
He cited an example of the ballfields in Central Park which are below the 100 year
flood level intentionally in order to protect the residential neighborhood
surrounding the park.
Chairman Sorenson inquired as to how long the golf course could be unplayable with
heavy rains. The City Manager stated that this situation would be unusual unless
Shingle Creek overflowed. He added that the course would be designed to handle
heavy spring rains. Chairman Sorenson then inquired when the course would be ready
each spring. The City Manager stated that the course would probably be ready to
play on April 10th of each year on an average.
The Commission continued its discussion of the golf course and addressed the length
of the various holes. Mr. Fjare noted that the shortest hole is 115 yards and the
longest is 183 yards. He added that yardage could be added or subtracted and that
the course is designed so that you can use all the various irons.
Commissioner Skeels inquired as to the financial impact if the course is not
constructed this year. The City Manager stated that the cost of construction,
inflation and the permitting costs would not prohibit construction the following
year. He added that he does not think these factors would change appreciably and
that if the Commission feels uncomfortable with approving the course this year he
does not think the delay would make the course financially unfeasible.
Chairman Sorenson questioned whether or not the course could be used for uses other
than golf. The City Manager commented that many courses permit cross country
skiing and that it would probably be permitted on this course also but the City would
not advertise the use for - this purpose since official designation would require
people to obtain a license as required by the State of Minnesota. Chairman Soreson .
inquired as to the total cost invested in the land at the current time. The City
Manager explained that one parcel was donated to the City by the Dayton- Hudson
Corporation, and the City purchased the remaining parcels at approximately $70,000
to $80,000 which costs are included in the total 1 million dollar cost of the
project. Chairman Sorenson then asked how many years it would take to pay off the
entire cost of the project. The City Manager explained that it would take 30 to 40
years at 10% interest rate and commented that it is difficult to project the total
time period since as the course ages there would have to be reinvestments such as
repairs to the clubhouse, course etc.
Chairman Sorenson recognized Mr. Larry Propst who inquired what the expenses were
for the first year. The City Manager explained that the first year expenses do not
include principal and interest payments. He added that the payment would be
capitalized and that the cost would not be heavy at the frontend. He added that much
of the payment would be located towards the end of the bond term. He added that it is
similar to a mortgage payment where an individual pays only the interest on the first
few years of the mortgage. He noted that expenses are estimated at a 6% inflation
rate. He noted that the estimted number of rounds are below the actual experiences
of the Roseville and New Hope-courses. He emphasized the fact that the loan portion
is not considered in the operating expenses.
Mr. Propst then inquired as to the next steps in the process if the Commission
approves the golf course proposal. The City Manager stated that the Commission
would recommend the project to the City Council and that there would be additional
staff time . -ld consultant dollars to provide a more detailed study including more
detail on the finances prior to presentation to the City Council. He noted that the
Council would then hold a public hearing on the golf course. Mr. Propst stated that
he would like to see some type of survey done of the community regarding the golf
course and recommended that the Commission pursue and recommend a survey to the City
Council. He added that he also had a concern for potential damage to the golf course
by vehicles driving on the grounds. The City Manager commented that the golf course
would be completely fenced.
After continued discussion by the the Commission there was a motion by Commissioner
Skeels and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to recommend to the Council that the
Council proceed with consideration of the golf course proposal as per the City
Manager's recommendations and to prepare the necessary additional information with
regard to financing and other pertinent issues related to the golf course
construction.
In discussion of the motion Commissioner Skeels stated that the City's long term
plan for the City's parks, which was prepared many years previous, indicated a
preference for a golf course. He added that he believes the course could be built
without a burden to the City taxpayers and that the positive aspects of the
construction of the course certainly outweigh the negative aspects.
Commissioner Peterson commented that the Commission has been studying the golf
course for at least 2 years and that it is certainly not something that the
Commission has considered lightly for approval.
Upon vote being taken the motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
There was a motion by Commissioner Mayleben and seconded by Commissioner Peterson to
recess the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Park and
Recreation Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
UPDATE ON FINE ARTS COMMITTEE
Commissioner Bloomstrand reported that Marsha Griffith, who originally approached
the Commission with the Fine Arts Committee concept no longer works for Brookdale
and is unavailable to work on the project.
The City Manager stated that he believes the Director of Recreation will be
recommending the hiring of some part time help to deal with certain program areas,
such as volleyball, in order to free up one of the program supervisors to head up the
Fine Arts Program. He added that this recommendation would have to be presented to
the City Council for approval. The Director of Recreation commented he believes
the Fine Arts Program would focus on events at the new Plaza area which would entail
making proposals for the 1986 budget.
DISCUSSION OF PARK AND RECREATION DIRECTOR RESIGNATION AND DEPARTMENT
REORGANIZATION
Chairman Sorenson requested the City Manager to review the Park and Recreation
Department reorganization upon the previous Park and Rec Director's retirement.
The City Manager commented that, prior to the Park and Rec Director's retirement
maintenance was directly supervised by the Street and Park Superintendent who
reported to the Public Works Director and Director of Parks and Recreation. He
explained that with the retirement of Mr. Hagel the maintenance of the parks will
still be supervised by the Street and Park Superintendent and that this individual
will report directly to the Publ-- Works Director. He commented that both the
Director of Recreation and the Director of Public Works will monitor and control the
maintenance level in the parks. He added that the same staff will be providing the
maintenance in the parks and he noted that he believes the same high quality of park
maintenance will continue.
DISCUSSION ON EARLE BROWN FARM DEVELOPMENT
Commissioner Peterson commented that he had met with the Earle Brown Farm advisory
committee last week and that the Committee had been investigating financing for a
potential project. The City Manager commented that there are apprarently three
options for the Earle Brown Farm area, one being to do nothing, the second being to
take an active role and try to find a developer to save the buildings, and the third
option being the City's involvement using tax increment financing to assist the
project. He added that options two and three can be combined in some fashion. Also
he pointed out the City must consider the Minnesota Historical Society since the
area has been designated as a historic site. He added that the question is now how
much involvement the City should have in the project.
KALEIDOSCOPE
The City Manager commented that the City will have the golf course layout and plaza
area layout on display at Kaleidoscope. He added that the Commission members can
call the City offices to arrange times to be present in the booth at Kaleidoscope.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Bloomstrand and seconded by Commissioner
Peterson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn
Center Park and Recreation Commission adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
0
Chairperson
: -2 -8 -3-
Upland M. Planting H
Rough Tr #
wa; d MaP1•
Muul•n oily /�•/ i / I
Chae•o n•rrT
Autumn Purple Ash
a! do.
work rry
linden
Bl Nora 801u60
hH* Pin. - 6 f
Mhruau 0.0 —ild
Genb ,h
r
&uriewirrT
W
flora
Einar
vlbu.um
Colone•at•r m?
01'.611146! 9ru• : N6nluekv alu. j �� (�
Perennial Mya -
r
Ro eh / T _
Fairways And Tees I Trl - lines ewfru u
1t
6 (Mwafwd) r r
® ® i
Greens creeping Dantg u .aefia - G C
CrwP•rf f a
66nlera f EF I � I Y f 6
Club �.,, �� Mole °e L Par
Nouf6 ;� - t a IT,
— 3 �a3
100 �; t=:P \ \I� tahbN 8kd8 g —J -- ] 120 e F F
I , coterie
61 -
y \il a ise 'e
551h Me. N.
I
g % U 96ik 6 1e3 &
F.1-Sys, To. . f 0run6 • - B,Id&6 II ikdlNll. e 7 ,JJ -. �.
a Its 1
• i l aaekelball `- g ,ss J 1
cou,1 VIa - �] .
/ h
1341 it
it* Caro C Y
Water Tower & 0-if couru l ���.e U111t Lsagda Field = ® Lowland Planting e
M•Intan-n0• Aru
/ 3 \ — Cn ®e,lo„ei5larada Undisturbed Ne,urel veebleuon l
tRw:d•ia,ael �, ? 1 ��f �_ L IRgvegepat d) trace. pea Map?.
sun Ar6. N. And Clubhousri qn.r n
gcn
lot so Moad - -. _ _ a ) 4�4..�. 1 Prn6 111— A
l7 1 I ae. t parking o craar
1, t le spruce
tamer ac6
��, Little 1.689.9 III• 1.681.689.9 f Field ® g pr
la<A suce ty
adu.,eYf, tees, And tlreenf - - � t ( i
` 7 •� Shrubs: bn wo d N
t < 0 0
ghbveh i cc NIlYl10 Tied - - -- Cra 1, 4 •z�
•�` �` W grlde• ��POUairI•n 5rrrlcrbrrrY �a r aj V
_.. _._. -.} - r, 4 ✓ .. ri n / Path nro n V
• � p d ..e L_ ® 6rAe,ra. P roene,d CC tj cc
1 it gnrd C.—, • II� Y
_ t ..� Ors s, Tees, 0. 1 ... j ,(T'�I M
• ./ __ I ,.. parr a, HT• °�
1.11.0 D Iv6 I _ I .+ t
C L Mev&n (gwq•t•ted) S nn iy 8 Q
�d
e' l Fairways And Tae& I tN -P1a, a,wera.,
—Undisturbed
Onem I is of a e:�iw::i
otla Bring''.
Mouth IM6rgUsled) Fairway. Taw, i 0,06.6 I
N
ilJtl Tedr klbbd
t p,&IIbX add.9
• Ioa .,•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption;
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE
FUND AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN
WHEREAS, pursuant to a public hearing held on June 24, 1985, the City
Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has determined that it is in the best
interests of the City to provide for the construction and the operation of a
municipal golf course; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented to the Council a recommended
financial plan for the construction and the operation of a municipal golf course:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that in accordance with that plan:
1. The Director of Finance is directed to establish a Municipal
Golf Course Enterprise Fund.
2. An amount of $600,000 is hereby appropriated to the Municipal
Golf Course Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Division 48, of
the Capital Projects Fund from the Capital Projects Fund fund
balance.
3. An additional amount of $500,000 is hereby appropriated to the
Municipal Golf Course Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Division
48, of the Capital Projects Fund. The additional amount is to
be financed from the Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund.
4. A loan in the amount of $500,000 at an annual interest rate of
5% is hereby approved from the Capital Projects Fund to the
Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund. The loan shall be dated
at that time when the golf course construction is completed and
the Municipal Golf Course Enterprise Fund reimburses the Capital
Projects Fund for those construction costs which exceed $600,000.
__— ---------
�— ___ —___
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
t RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1985 -23 AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH BRAUER AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. FOR THE DESIGN OF
SAID IMPROVEMENT
---------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, pursuant to a public hearing held on June 24,
1985, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has
determined that it is in the best interests of the City to
provide for the construction of a municipal golf course:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1. The proposed improvement shall be established as:
MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1985 -23
2. The financing plan, as proposed by the City Manager
is hereby adopted.
3. Accounting for Improvement Project No. 1985 -23 shall
be in Division 48 of the Capital Project Fund.
4. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to enter into agreement with Brauer and
Associates, Ltd. for the design of the municipal
golf course at a lump sum fee of $48,820.00, for
administration of the bidding procedure at a lump
sum fee of $1,900.00, and administration of the
construction contract phase at a cost not to exceed
$19,950.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
May 31, 1985
City of Brooklyn Center
Parks and Recreation Department
City Hall
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services
Lyons Park and Par 3 Golf Course
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee sche-
dule and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an
agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, herein referred to as the OWNER, and
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., herein referred to as the
CONSULTANT.
The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide the
landscape architectural, architectural and engineering ser-
vices required to complete design development, contract docu-
ments, bidding and construction observation for site,
structure, and utility development of the facilities in the
area (see attached Exhibit A, dated February 14, 1985),
hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. Paul Fjare will serve
as the CONSULTANT'S Project Manager for the duration of the
PROJECT unless the E grants written permission to the
OWN R gra p
CONSULTANT to designate another approved representative.
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Basic Services
1. Meeting(s) with the OWNER to review the final approved
master p an, the amended floodway /fringe designations
currently being prepared by BARR Engineering,
establish an overall PROJECT timeline, and incor-
porate additional feedback regarding PROJECT design
proposals.
Desi n is of all elements
2. (develop cost analy 9 p
me t and y
of the PROJECT incorporating public feedback
gathered including:
g red during PROJECT hearings in g:
a. GOLF COURSE
9 hole golf course plus putting green
` - 7 sand traps as illustrated on Exhibit A
L° %
m - Green and sand trap underdrainage
- Turf i rri gati on system
�- -
Seeding, g, sodding and preparation of an
OWNER maintenance manual
7901 Flying C't ^' nrive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660
City of Brooklyn Center -2- May 31, 1985
- Plant materials
- Fencing of golf course perimeter
- Golf course furniture
- Golf course card
- Storm sewer extension to accomodate
relocated hole #1
- Three bridges crossing Shingle Creek.
- Relocation of bridge suspended watermain under
Shingle Creeek to a similar alignment.
b. CLUB HOUSE
- Structure program to be developed in cooperation
with the OWNER
- Structure to total approximately 2,500 square feet
- Required utilities to service the structure
- Parking lot for approximately 120 cars
- Access drive along the southwesterly extension of
North Lilac Drive
- Required site walks
- Seeding, sodding and planting
- Final project signage consistent with other OWNER
signs on similar municipal projects
c. LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD RELOCATION
- Relocation of existing little league field to
Russell and 54th Ave. location
- Two new little league fields to be developed when
relocation occurs.
- Each field to be equipped with:
• perimeter fencing
• backstop
* two bleachers
* common press box to serve both fields
* surface -type dugouts
- Combination concession stand /storage structure to
serve both fields
- Expansion of the present parking lot from 30
parking spaces to approximately 70 spaces (see
Exhibit A attached)
- Seeding, sodding and planting
- Field bases and other miscellaneous equipment to
furnish the fields
- Relocation of bicycle and pedestrian path
City of Brooklyn Center -3- May 31, 1985
3. Meeting(s) with OWNER to review design development
etails prior to starting final construction docu-
ments and specifications.
4. Construction Drawings and Specifications for develop-
ment work, and required details complete and ready for
bidders for all elements outlined in A -2 above. The
OWNER may desire bidding of the PROJECT in more than
one phase. If necessary, plans and specifications
will be prepared in two or three phases, if such would
be advantageous to the overall PROJECT flow.
5. Furnish the OWNER with one check set of contract
drawings and specifications of each phase for review
and feedback to the CONSULTANT prior to advertisement
for bid, if more than one phase occurs.
6. Bidding Procedures which include preparation of
advertisements for bids, issuance of drawings and
specifications to bidders, clarification of questions
by addenda during the bidding period, direction of
bidders conference, analysis of bids received, recom-
mendations for contract award and assistance in pre-
paration of contract documents for each contract
awarded.
7. Construction Observation Periodic communication with
the Contractor and OWNER, visits to the site on
the average of one per week during construction to
interpret design intent of the plans and specifica-
tions, set up payment schedule, approve shop drawings,
make general progress reports, process change orders,
and approve field changes.
B. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion
of professional services described above as follows:
1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in
Paragraphs A -1 through A -5 above, a Lump Sum Fee of
FORTY -EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY DOLLARS
($48,820.00), plus all direct PROJECT expenses.
2. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in
Paragraph A -6 above, a lump sum fee of ONE THOUSAND
NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,900.00) for each phase of the
overall PROJECT, bid separately.
City of Brooklyn Center -4- May 31, 1985
3. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in
Paragraph A -7 above, a fee to be determined on the
basis of the following hourly rates, plus expenses,
to an estimated maximum of NINETEEN THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS (19,950.00). The maximum fee
will be budgeted to coincide with the contractor's
anticipated PROJECT completion date.
Senior Professionals $60.00 per hour
Professionals $50.00 per hour
Technician $25.00 per hour
C. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT
1. Statements will be submitted to the OWNER on a
monthly basis, with a breakdown of time and expenses
for services performed, or work completed, through
the 25th of the previous month.
2. Payments on account of CONSULTANT'S services are due
and payable upon receipt.
D. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY
The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all
existing data related to the work and all other data or
information which may develop that could impact the deci-
sions or recommendations made under this Agreement. The
OWNER shall specifically provide where available:
1. Base mapping including an accurate boundary represen-
tation with utilities, easements, etc.
2. Identification of any site restrictions.
3. Soil borings and surveys integral to PROJECT require-
ments, utilities and other data which describes the
general nature and conditions of the site.
4. Topographic mapping of the PROJECT area tied to the
boundary survey.
5. OWNER to provide standard City specifications that
the OWNER may requi re as a part of the Contract
Documents.
6. Reimbursement of all direct expenses including
mileage, advertisements, and printing of all plans
and specifications required by the PROJECT.
City of Brooklyn Center -5- May 31, 1985
7. Additional data or information which will have a
bearing on the planning or design conclusions and
recommendations of the CONSULTANT.
8. One designated individual with whom the CONSULTANT
can meet, receive instructions and deliver infor-
mation and coordinate all planning activities.
E. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
1. The Term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with
the work authorized.
2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at
any time by written notice, and shall be effective
upon payment in full for all services performed to
the date of receipt of such notice.
3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its
partners, successors, assigns and legal represen-
tatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to
the partners, successors, assigns and legal represen-
tatives of such other party with respect to all cove-
nants of this Agreement.
4. Neither th.e OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign,
sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement
without the written consent of the other.
F. NONDISCRIMINATION
The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee
or applicant for employment because of race, color, reli-
gion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age.
The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure
that applicants are employed and that employees are
treated during employment without regard to their race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition
or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to
the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or
transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termi-
nation, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and
selection for training including apprenticeship.
G. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE
1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly
fees, design calculations and research notes in
legible form and will be made available to the OWNER,
if requested.
i
City of Brooklyn Center -6- May 31, 1985
2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him
from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from
claims for damages because of bodily i includi
9 Y J Y 9
death to his employees and the public, and from
claims for property damage.
3. The CONSULTANT shall name the OWNER for this project
as a co- insured on the consultants General Liability
Insurance Policy and shall provide the OWNER with
certificates of insurance for CONSULTANT'S Workmans
Compensation Insurance, General Liability Insurance,
and Professional Liability Insurance prior to
beginning work.
4. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and main-
tain statutory copyright in all published books,
published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or
technical character, and other works related to this
PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER
shall have full rights to reproduce works under this
Agreement either in whole or in part as related to
this PROJECT. One co of each drawing shall be
PY 9 pro-
P
vided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but
the original drawings will remain the property of the
CONSULTANT.
H. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW
1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated
agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations,
or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect
to the PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only
by written instrument signed by both OWNER and
CONSULTANT.
2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be
governed by the law of the principal place of busi-
ness of the CONSULTANT.
City of Brooklyn Center -7- May 31, 1985
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and
executed this Agreement,
This day of 1985.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota In presence of:
Mayor
City Manager
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD. In presence of:
E e Prairie, Minnesota
n
aul S. fare, M.L.A.
Presiden
PSF /jt
•
June 3, 1985
Mr. Sy Knapp
City of Brooklyn Center
Parks and Recreation Department
City Hall
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Lyons Park and Par 3 Golf Course
Mr. Knapp:
Attached for your review and signature are three (3) copies
of a proposal for professional services for the above
referenced project. If everything is in order, please
return one signed copy, following City Council authorization.
As you will note in the contract proposal, it is my intent
to serve as the project manager throughout the duration of
this contract. We will be using the services of Braun
Engineering and Testing to assist us in all phases of soils
technology, Minnesota Valley Engineering for on -site utili-
ties and pedestrian bridges, and Architectural Design Group
for all phases of architecture. We have had considerable
experience working with these firms on other projects.
I am looking forwa -rd to being a part of yet another quality
project in the City of Brooklyn Center.
5 deration. for your consi
S_S �IATES LTD.
Paul S. Fj re, M.L.A.
President
PSF /1k
Attachments
m
7901 Flying Clo, " Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (=1 (612) 941 -1660
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JUNE 13, 1985
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
George Lucht at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners dolly Y lecki, Nancy Manson, Carl Sandstrom,
Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and
Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer James Grube and Planner Gary Shallcross.
Chairman Lucht stated that Commissioner Lowell Ainas was excused from the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 23, 1985
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the
minutes of the May 23, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in
favor: Commissioner Malecki, Mlanson, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against:
none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Bernards, as they were not at
that meeting. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 85015 (S & G Associates)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the
tract of land on which the Earle Brown Farm Apartments is located at 170169th Avenue
North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning
Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85015 attached). The Secretary
also explained that the development of the proposed Lot 2 would be subject to site
and building plan approval in the future.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No.85015)
Chairman Lucht then opened a public hearing and asked the applicant whether he had
anything to add. Mr. Clyde Ahlquist of Franke, Riach and Franke, the attorney for S
& G Associates, asked how 69th Avenue North is classified as a public street. The
Planner stated that 69th was a collector street with a minimum width of 70'. Mr.
Ahlquist asked why a 100' right -of -way was being sought. He asked if the
classification of the street was being upgraded. The City Engineer explained that
69th Avenue North h would be widened for a ik
d ed o b e ath and that a sidewalk and an urban
ban
boulevard would be provided with future improvements of the roadway. Mir. Ahlquist
stated that he felt the reservation of additional right -of -way amounted to a
reclassification of the street and asked whether this had to be done by ordinance.
rt
Regarding the i
g g required 5 greenstrip along the east edge of Lot 1, Mr. Ahlquist asked
why this was being required if it was not a City ordinance provision. The Secretary
explained that the 5' greestrip along an interior property line is a long - standing
policy though it is not an ordinance requirement. He explained that the objective
of the policy is to have 5' of green area on either side of a property line resulting
in a 10' wide green area overall. Mr. Ahlquist stated that the owners of the
property would be willing to provide a 10' green area along the west side of the new
Lot 2 development.
6 -13 -85 -1-
There followed discussion of the idea of establishing 10' of green area along the
west property line of Lot 2. Mr. Ahlquist explained that he wished to keep the land
within Lot 2 in order to preserve the maximum allowable density for that parcel.
The Secretary suggested that a deed restriction requiring a 10' green area along the
west property line of Lot 2 be filed with the plat of the property.
Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Ahlquist if he understood the need for the 50' right -of-
way. Mr. Ahlquist stated that he understood the future plans for the roadway, but
did not understand the authority to require additional dedication of right -of -way
at this time. Chairman Lucht asked whether he would accept the idea of a deed
restriction requiring a 10' green area along the west property line of Lot 2. Mr.
Ahlquist answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Manson pointed out that a
recent subdivision along 69th Avenue North had required additional right -of -way and
a 50' setback for a single- family dwelling. Mr. Ahlquist stated that he did not
understand the authority to require that much right -of -way for a collector street.
The City Engineer responded that the point could be debated endlessly. He stated
that the City had shown good faith in vacating Irving Avenue North right -of -way to
the east of the plat for the applicant's benefit. He stated he expected the
applicant to recognize the City's good faith request to acquire right -of -way for
beneficial improvements to 69th Avenue North in the future.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the
public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOWENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85015 (S & G Associates)
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend
approval of Application No. 85015, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
3• The plat shall be modified in the following manner, prior to final
plat approval,.
a. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated along 69th Avenue
North to provide for a 50' wide street.
b. Drainage and utility easements shall be indicated as 5' along
interior property lines and 10' along 69th Avenue North.
c. The applicant shall file a deed restriction with the plat
requiring a 10' wide green area along the west side of Lot 2.
4. Final plat approval is subject to adoption of an ordinance by the
City Council vacating the Irving Avenue North half- street east of
the subdivision.
5. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup
agreement prior to final plat approval.
6. The plat shall receive final approval and filed at the County
prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2.
6 -13 -85 _2_
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom, Nelson
and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 85016 (Village Properties)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance
from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a temporary 1' setback off
Highway 252 right -of -way and to allow a density variance of two units at the
Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 to 7224 Camden Avenue North. The Secretary
reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 85016 attached). The Secretary also noted that the
agenda contained copies of letters of intent to acquire the property to the east
after the Highway Department declares what is excess right -of -way. The Secretary
also pointed out that a letter from MN /DOT had been submitted which skirts the issue
of available right -of -way. He stated that this letter is contrary to Condition No.
3 recommended in the staff report. He stated that he felt the condition is
necessary and that the applicant should work out with MN /DOT some definite
arrangement for acquisition of adequate right -of -way.
Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Ken
Solie of Village Properties stated that the problem was getting the State to agree to
give up 50' of excess right -of -way. He pointed out that the ordinance allows for a `
40' setback if mitigating circumstances such as a marginal access street or noise
wall or berm were provided within the right -of -way area. The Secretary explained
the ordinance referred to by Mr. Solie, footnote 10 from Section 35 -400. He added,
however, that he did not think MN /DOT would be constructing a frontage road or a
noise wall. Mr. Jerry Cowan, also with Village Properties, stated that MN /DOT was
planning to construct a 6' berm within the right -of -way. He went on to discuss
various problems of getting the state to commit to a future scenario. Fir. Solie
asked that any variance action be flexible enough to help in their negotiation with
the State.
The Secretary stated that there was no assurance that a noise wall or berm would be
built. Chairman Lucht asked whether it might be appropriate to amend Condition No.
3 to allow a 40' setback if a berm were provided. The Secretary stated that the
basis for the variance is that the required setback will ultimately be met. Mr.
Solie again stated that he was looking for flexibility in dealing with the State.
The Planner pointed out that if the State is unwillingly to commit to returning 50'
of excess right -of -way, they may be unwilling to commit to turning back 40' as well.
In this case, he stated, there would be no basis for a temporary variance. MT. Solie
suggested that perhaps the State could be persuaded to build a noise wall in this
area. There followed a discussion regarding the problems of negotiating with the
State and meeting the requirements of the City for a variance. The applicant stated
that they were left with very little negotiating room between the requirements of
the two governmental units.
Mr. Cowan asked whether a permanent variance could be granted. The Secretary
stated that that would be a separate question and would have to be evaluated on the
basis of the Standards for Variances contained in the Zoning Ordinance. There
followed further discussion regarding recommended Condition No. 3 and the
difficulty of dealing with the State. Mr. Solie stated that if a 40' setback with a
noise wall would be allowed, this might add flexibility to the negotiation with the
State. There was discussion regarding allowing this under Condition No. 3•
6 -13 -85 -3-
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 85016)
i�an Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He noted that there
was no one besides the applicant to speak on the application and called for a motion
to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the
public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Manson asked whether people living in the building at present would
have to leave and new tenants would come in. Mr. Cowan answered in the affirmative
and added that those tenants would get relocation benefits as well.
ACTION RECMIMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO.85016 (Village Properties)
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend
approval of Application No. 85016, subject to the following conditions:
1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship
created by the highway taking and the public interest in
preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of
the owner's financial interests alone.
2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the
repurchase rights to any excess right -of -way to the east of the
Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of
permits for relocation of the 7212 building.
3• The applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of permits for
building relocation, a letter from MN /DOT acknowledging that
there is adequate excess right -of -way and /or potential
mitigating improvements in the future to provide for required
ordinance setbacks.
4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the
Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan
application for the property with new building and parking
locations and any other site modifications comprehended, prior
to the issuance of permits for relocation and reconstruction.
5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed"
by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided
and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations
of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant
shall acquire the excess right -of -way immediately to the east of
the apartment complex and maintain the area in a manner
consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing
Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a
manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will
acquire excess right -of -way from the MN /DOT and shall combine
this property to the Evergreen Apartment complex through
platting or registered ?and survey. Said agreement shall be
filed with the title to ` property prior to issuance of permits
for relocation or remo:•.._�ing. _
_72_sz� -4-
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and
Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and resumed at 9:05 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEM
Tax Increment Plan for the Earle Brown Farm
Following the recess, the Secretary briefly introduced a discussion of a tax
increment financing plan and redevelopment plan for the Earle Brown Farm. He noted
that the plan had only been given to the Commission that evening and encouraged the
Commisson to review it over the next two weeks. He pointed out that the Tax
Increment District proposed in the plan was much smaller than originally
contemplated about three months ago. He stated that the Commission's primary
responsibility is to comment on the land use aspects of the proposed plan and any
other comments it wished to make.
Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the City was going to buy the Earle Brown Farm.
Mr. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant in the City Manager's office, stated
that it depends on the present owner of the property Mr. Deil Gustafson. He stated
that the City had made an offer for the property that Mr. Gustafson thinks is
inadequate. Mir. Hoffman reviewed with the Commission the new district boundaries:
the freeway on the north, Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, John Martin Drive on the
south and Earle Brown Drive on the east. He stated that the development concept was
to build 269 apartment units on the Earle Brown Farm site in the southerly portion of
the property and on an adjacent property to the south. He stated that there would
also be a parcel containing the Farm buildings and that a third parcel on the west and
north of the site would be for either more residential development or possibly
office development.
Chairman Lucht asked what parcels were being acquired. Mr. Hoffman showed on
Figure 2 of the report the primary p n which the Farm buildings w ere located
p c o is e
p Y
and a parcel to the south on which an older office building is located. He stated that
the Earle Brown Task Force recommends acquisition of the Farm. Mr. Hoffman stated
that the cost of restoring and reusing the Farm buildings would be approximately
$75.00 to $100.00 per square foot of building area. Mr. Hoffman then reviewed Table
1 of the plan with estimated project costs and also reviewed the revenues outlined in
the plan, notably about $400,000.00 in federal community development block grant
funds. Mr. Hoffman noted that the gross impact on the school district would be
approximately $420,000.00 per year, but that this would be offset considerably by an
increase in State aids.
Commissioner Nelson asked why general obligation bond financing is not practical.
Mr. Hoffman answered that it was mainly from a timing perspective, that the time it
would take to hold a referendum would cause the loss of federal funds available for
acquisition of the property. He stated that the property would be bought without an
explicit plan and that the community would be paying capitalized interest on money
that was not being put to work immediately. He explained that the tax increment
generated by the district would not have this negative cost to it. Commissioner
Nelson noticed that the size of the district had been reduced and asked why this had
been done. Mr. Hoffman stated that it was principally to satisfy the concerns of
6 -13 -85 -5-
the school district. Commissioner Nelson noted that ancillary uses in the former
district had been removed. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged that Northbrook Shopping
Center had been removed, but might later be established as a separate district. He
stated that the low interest loans for building rehabilitation had been primarily
designed for that shopping center. Chairman Lucht explained that the district had
been shrunk as much as possible while still providing enough revenue to retire the
expected debt with tax increment funds.
Commissioner Bernards asked where the impetus for the tax increment plan was coming
from. Mr. Hoffman stated that it grows out of a 1981 survey which showed that a
majority of residents in the community were willing to pay tax dollars to restore the
Farm. Commissioner Sandstrom asked about the possibility of private sector
redevelopment of the Farm. Mr. Hoffman stated that it was simply not economically
feasible for the private sector to undertake such a redevelopment.
Commissioner Nelson stated that he had problems with buying the Farm property and
restoring the buildings and putting the burden of this expense on the small area of
the City within the tax increment district. Mr. Hoffman stated that the financing
burden would be borne by the entire school district. Chairman Lucht added that the
rest of the City would also finance the restoration to some extent. In response to a
question from Commissioner Bernards, Mr. Hoffman stated that the alternatives
before the City were basically to do nothing, to pay for the acquisition and
restoration by a general obligation bond issue, or to pay for the acquisition and
restoration with a tax increment financing district. Commissioner Bernards asked
whether it would not be in the spirit of the 1981 survey to put the question of
restoring the farm to a referendum vote. Mr. Hoffman answered that the five members
of the City Council.have been elected to make those kinds of decisions.
Commissioner Nelson asked what federal money would be lost if a tax increment
district were declared. Mr. Hoffman answered that approximately $400,,000.00 of
community development block grant funds would be lost if they could not be
appropriated for the project prior to July 1, 1985. Commissioner Bernards likened
the use of federal funds to buying a dress on sale. He said if you don't buy the
dress at all, you don't lose anything.
The Secretary stated that it would be up to the Commission to comment on the land use
aspects of the redevelopement plan and tax increment plan and any other aspects that
it wished to at its next meeting. Commissioner Bernards stated that he could not
understand why Deil Gustafson would balk at the City's offer for the property. Mr.
Hoffman responded that the value of the land actually would be greater if the
buildings were removed and the land were clear for commercial development.
Commissioner Bernards asked whether 10 years is the likely duration of the tax
increment district. Mr. Hoffman responded in the affirmative.
The Secretary stated that the Earle Brown Task Force would be looking at proposals
for reuse of the Farm buildings in the future. Mr. Hoffman added that the main
element to the redevelopment of the Farm area is the construction of 269 dwelling
units.
ADJOURNMENT
Following a brief discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by
Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of
the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission
adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Chairman
6 -13 -85 -6-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 85015
Applicant: S and G Associates
Location: 1701 69th Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel
of land on which the Earle Brown Farm Apartments is located. The property in question
is zoned R5 and is bounded on the east by Irving Avenue North right -of -way (which has
not been ut in; further east are e the Humboldt Court Apartments and the
p Q Petroleum
service station), on the south by the Spec. 7 industrial building and Hiawatha Rubber,
on the west by Medtronic and the Spec.. 6 industrial building, and on the north by 69th
Avenue North. The proposed plat would divide off most of the excess land on the east
side of the Earle Brown Farm Apartments property to create a parcel for a separate,
new development. No development plans have yet been submitted.
The proposed plat is to be called the Tanami Addition. The lot areas are as follows:
Lot 1: 8.24 acres
Lot 2: 1.53 acres
Total: 9.77 acres
Lot 1, as proposed, has more area than required for the 120 existing apartment units on
the property. At 2,700 sq. ft. per unit, the area requirement for the existing
apartment complex is 7.44 acres. The proposed common property line between Lot 1 and
Lot 2 is along the curb line of the east edge of the existing parking lot. This is
not desirable since a 5' greenstrip is normally sought along internal property lines
in multiple - family, commercial, and industrial zoning districts.
As mentioned earlier, a half- street of Irving Avenue North right -of -way, which has
never been built, exists to the east of the plat. Although the applicant does not own
the underlying rights to the land, S and G Associates have petitioned for vacation of
the right -of -way since there is no need for the street and the continued existence
of right -of -way would acquire greater building and parking setbacks, The first reading
of an ordinance vacating this portion of Irving Avenue North right -of -way has been held
by the City Council at its June 10, 1985 meeting.
The proposed plat indicates an existing 10' wide sidewalk easement along the west
side of Lot 1. It also indicates a 66' wide utility easement immediately east of the
existing apartment building. The City Engineer has recommended that 5' wide drainage
and utility easements be provided along interior property lines and 10' wide easements
along 69th Avenue North right -of -way.
The City Engineer has also recommended that 3' to 7' of additional right -of -way along
69th Avenue North be dedicated in order to achieve a 50 wide half- street for the
southerly portion of 69th Avenue North. The total right -of -way for the south half of
69th Avenue North presently expands from 43' to 47' going from east to west. The City
Engineer has also requested documentation of a storm sewer easement within the proposed
Lot 2 where a 21" storm sewer exists to serve the Spec. 7 site to the south. The City
Engineer has also noted that the property is subject to additional water assessment and
that a utility hookup agreement should, therefore, be required.
The proposed plat meets general ordinance requirements and can be approved, subject to
at least the following conditions:
6 -13 -85
Application No. 85015 continued
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. The plat shall be modified in the following manner, prior to final plat
approval:
a) Additional right =of -way shall be dedicated along 69th
Avenue North to provide for a 50' wide half- street.
b) Drainage and utility easements shall be indicated as 5'
along interior property lines and 10'along 69th Avenue
North.
c) The common property line shall be moved eastward to
provide a 5' greenstrip adjacent to the curb line of
the existing parking lot.
4. Final plat approval is subject to adoption of an ordinance by the City
Council vacating the Irving Avenue North half- street east of the
subdivision.
5. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement prior
to final plat approval.
6. The plat shall receive final approval and filed at the County prior to
issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2.
6 -13 -85 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 85016
Applicant: Village Properties
Location: 7200 -7224 Camden Avenue North (Evergreen Park Apartments
Request: Variance
The applicant requests two variances from the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a lesser set-
back on a temporary basis from the new Highway 252 westerly right -of -way line, and to
allow more units on the remaining property than normally permitted (a density vari-
ance). The property in question is the Evergreen Park Apartments. It is zoned R4
and is bounded on the north by the Church of the Nazarene and a City well house; on
the east by Highway 252 and by two single- family homes that are being condemned and
removed by MN /DOT; on the south by vacant City -owned property; and on the west by
Camden Avenue North. The variance is occasioned by MN /DOT acquiring a square of land
at the southeast corner of the property, approximately 205' x 205'. The taking will
include the easterly most apartment building on the property, 7212 Camden Avenue
North which is presently attached along a fire wall with 7206 Camden Avenue North.
Since the taking would leave the 7206 building only 11' from the new highway 252
right -of -way line, the City has informed the owners that no permit would be issued to
rebuild the fire wall at such a substandard setback (see letter dated September 14,
1984 attached). The highway department has accordingly agreed to acquire the 7206
building also. However, Village Properties has the right to buy back both buildings
and relocate them. The disposition of the 7206 and the 7212 buildings is the cause
of this application.
The applicant, Mr. Ken Solie, has submitted a letter (attached) explaining what
Village Properties wishes to do with the condemned buildings and why. He explains
that any compensation from the State for the existing buildings would, under the terms
of the contract for deed, have to be applied toward the remaining principle. This
would make their investment less attractive financially. Village Properties, there-
fore, wishes to relocate and preserve the existing buildings as much as possible.
They wish to relocate the 7212 buildling to the northeast portion of the property,
set back only one foot from the adjacent residential property which is being ac-
quired by MN /DOT. The westerly part of this land is expected to be sold back to
private owners after the new highway is constructed and the resulting setback would
be 52' (the required setback from major thoroughfares is 501. The setback variance
would, therefore, be temporary in nature. Mr. Solie states that he and co -owner
Jerry Cowan are seeking to obtain the underlying rights to buy back the excess right -
of -way in the future so that the 50' setback can be achieved. Meanwhile, the 7206
building would be shortened by removing the four units on the east and resulting in
a setback of more than the minimum of 50'.
The other aspect of the variance request relates to allowable density. Mr. Solie
explains in his letter that the land available for the Evergreen Park Apartment
complex, after the highway acquisition and the repurchase of excess right -of -way,
would be 267,898 sq. ft. At 3,600 sq. ft. per unit, this amount of land would support
74.4 or 74 units. There are 80 units in the complex now. After the demolition of 4 units
at the east end of the 7206 building and relocation of the 7212 building, there would
be 76 units, two more than allowed by ordinance.
Mr. Solie concludes his letter by arguing that the variance request is justified
because of the following factors:
"1. Evergreen Apartments were purchased in 1978 as a long term investment
without knowledge of the pending highway construction.
2. The property and its financing package cannot be replaced in its
present condition today at any cost resulting in a significant
financial hardship to the owners.
6 -13 -85 _1_
Application No. 85016 continued
3. The property is the largest taking involved in the Highway 252 project
and accordingly, does not set a precedent for future variances in
Brooklyn Center for this construction.
4. No additional construction on adjacent land can be forseen. The land
to the south is reserved for public use: to the west, development is
complete. The church to the north does not plan.expansion at this time
according to Pastor Errol Webb. The land to the east is reserved for
highway right -of -way. Accordingly, after construction is complete, the
site will appear exactly as it does now."
Staff are unable to makea very clear connection between the applicant's arguments and
the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35 -240 (attached). Financial
problems of the kind cited by the applicant do not constitute a "hardship" in the
sense of physical use of the property. They are not related to "physical surroundings,
shape, or topographical conditions." Mr. Solie asserts that the Evergreen Apartments
property is the largest taking involved in the Highway 252 project and accordingly,
does not set a precedent for future variances. However, size of parcel or extent of
condemnation is not really important. What is important is the physical constraints
posed by surroundings, topography, lot lines, etc. in conjunction with ordinance
requirements. Such constraints may be essentially the same no matter what the size
of a parcel is. The applicant concludes by saying that the relationship of the complex
to its surroundings will be exactly the same after (Highway? building ?) construction
as now. This is glossing over a lot of changes outlined in the letter, but brought
on by the construction of the highway. Nevertheless, this last point moves toward a
valid concern, namely the physical difficulties brought on by the construction of
Highway 252. 0
This is indeed the most basic question which must be answered: does the circumstance
of the highway construction create a particular hardship to the owner so that he is
unable to make reasonable use of his property if the strict letter of the regulations
is carried out. Our first reaction to this hardship question is that the buildings
involved are being acquired by the State and the owner is, therefore, really presented
with clear ground on which conforming structures can be built. On the other hand,
this may be ignoring too much the potential and the intrinsic value (aside from the
owner's financial interest) of preserving the buildings as much as possible. Should
considerable real property be destroyed over what may be considered technical circum-
stances? On the face of it, we believe that it is appropriate to preserve the
buildings if setbacks can be attained and resulting density is only incidentally and
marginally in excess of ordinance requirements. The applicant's proposal seems
capable of living within these bounds. A physical hardship may be said to exist if
preservation of the buildings is considered to be generally in the public interest.
A density variance may be considered a use variance where different densities are
allowed in different zoning districts, ie. density is a distinguishing characteristic
between zoning districts. Use variances are not permitted under State law. In the
present case, the proposal to allow two excess units in the complex reduce the land area per unit from
3,689 sq. ft. per unit at present to 3,525 sq. Tt. per unit under the proposal. The
ordinance requirement in the R4 zone is 3,600 sq. ft. per unit. In the R5 zone, the
requirement is 2,700 sq. ft. per unit. Clearly, the resulting situation is much
closer to the R4 requirement than the R5 requirement. The land area available under
the proposal is 97.9% of the ordinance requirement, a variance of 2.1 %. The Commission
must make a judgment whether the density variance sought in this case is, or is not,
a use variance (allowing what amounts to a higher land use classification in the R4
zone)in addition to whether the requested variance meets the standards set forth in
Section 35 -240.
6 -13 -85 -2-
Application No. 85016 continued
The circumstance of the highway taking is the cause of the physical hardship in this
case. That is a unique circumstance, not common to other property in the R4 district.
The physical hardship results from applying the ordinance requirements to the property
after the taking and has not been created by the owner of the property. Finally,we
agree that the physical arrangement of buildings will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood so long
as an effective 50' setback from the highway right -of -way can be achieved.
Although we feel approval of the variance is possible based on the Standards for a
Variance, it is recommended that any such approval be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship created
by the highway taking and the public interest in preserving real
property, and is not justifiable on the basis of the owner's financial
interests alone.
2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the repurchase
rights to any excess right -of -way to the east of the Evergreen Park
Apartments property, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation of
the 7212 building.
3. The applicant shall submit, prior to consideration by the City Council,
a letter from the MNDOT acknowledging that there is at least 50' of
excess right -of -way available with the acquisition of the residential
lots immediately east of the Evergreen Park Apartments.
4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council a site and building plan application for
the property with new building and parking locations and any other site
modifications comprehended, prior to the issuance of permits for re-
location and reconstruction.
5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed" by
the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided and
any new construction shall conform to the density limitations of the
Zoning Ordinance.
6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant shall
acquire the excess right -of -way immediately to the east of the apart-
ment complex and maintain the area in a manner consistent with the
proposed site plan and the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance.
7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a manner
approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will acquire excess
right -of -way from the MN /DOT and shall combine this property to the
Evergreen Apartment complex g p lex throu h platting or registered land survey.
P 9 P 9 . 9 Y
Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to
issuance of permits for relocation or remodeling.
6 -13 -85 -3-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police
,DATE: June 21, 1985
SUBJECT: Application for On -Sale Nonintoxicating Malt
Beverage License, 50's Grill
Attached please find application for on -sale nonintoxicating malt
Beverage License for the 50's Grill. Investigation of the back-
ground of the principals in this endeavor reveals nothing of a
derogatory nature.
Recommend approval.
T he following is a resume of the investigation of Case No. 85- 09018, an
application for On -Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Beverage. This resume has
been prepared by Investigator A. Paul MONTEEN, transcribed and
typewritten by Lori NOVAK, clerk typist for the Brooklyn Center Police
Department.
APPLI C AW 1
John Webb SCHUBERT, President DOB: 03 -24 -43
1953 Stanford
St. Paul, MN
home phone - 690 -1077
Brooklyn Center Restaurant, Inc.
DBA: 50's Grill
5224 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, MN
business phone - 560 -4947
Courtney John STOREY DOB: 07 - 30 - 43
1717 Beechwood Avenue
St. Paul, MN
home phone - 690 -1609
business phone - 893 -8833
MMBZ TIE C¢IVTA�I�ED II�THI
Form 1, Application for On -Sale Nonintoxicating Beverages.
Form 2, in Support of an Application for On -Sale Nonintoxicating
Beverages.
Form in Support of a Prospective Application For On -Sale Intoxicating
Liquor or Wine.
An Application for Sunday Intoxicating Liquor or Wine.
Form 3, Personal Information in Support of an Application for
Nonintoxicating Malt Beverages in the name of John Webb SCHUBERT and
Courtney John STOREY.
The Brooklyn Center Police Department Application Check in the name of
John Webb SCHUBERT, Courtney John STOREY and Lynn Marie (HUNTINGTON)
SCHUBERT.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Investigator MONTEEN received the above listed materials from James
LINDSAY, Chief of Police, and proceeded to do a routine background
investigation on the corporate officers and investors in application
for this license. Investigator MONTEEN checked with the files of the
Brooklyn Center Police Department, the warrant office in Hennepin and
Ramsey County, the criminal records division of the Hennepin and Ramsey
County Sheriff's offices, the records division of the St. Paul Police
Department and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension of the State of
Minnesota and found no violations or records in the name of John Webb
SCHUBERT, Lynn Marie HUNTINGTON or Lynn Marie SCHUBERT, nor Courtney
John STOREY.
Resume by Investigator MONTEEN Case No. 85 -09018 Page 2
Investigator MONTEEN also checked with the Department of Motor Vehicles
and found that John Webb SCHUBERT holds a valid Class C driver's
license; that Lynn Marie SCHUBERT, as well, holds a valid Class C
driver's license, and that Courtney John STOREY holds a valid Class C
driver's license. In reviewing the records of each driving permit,
Investigator MONTEEN finds no violations, which would include the use
of alcohol.
Investigator MONTEEN drove to the neighborhood of the SCHUBERT's, 1953
Stanford in St. Paul. This address is on the northwest corner of
Stanford at Prior and approximately one -half mile south of the campus
of Macalester College. Investigator MONTEEN found this to be a quiet,
neatly kept neighborhood and stopped first at 1957 Stanford where there
was no answer at the door. Investigator MONTEEN proceeded east down
the block and stopped in front of the residence, observing the lawn and
structure of the house, when a gust of wind blew over an elm tree at
1957 Stanford. Investigator MONTEEN immediately ran from the SCHUBERT
residence and avoided being struck by the falling elm tree, however,
this incident did bring nearly everyone in the neighborhood out to
inspect the damage, which gave Investigator MONTEEN opportunity to
speak to numerous neighbors of the SCHUBERT's.
Investigator MONTEEN met the neighbor at 1963 Stanford who indicated
that the SCHUBERT's were excellent neighbors, that they were active in
the community and neighborhood, as well as extremely active in the
church and school located approximately one -half block east of their
home. This neighbor (who's first name I did not get) indicated that
Mrs. SCHUBERT was a teacher at the school, at which time she introduced
me to a man driving a Volkswagon Rabbit convertible who indicated that
he was in fact the principal of the school and spoke very highly of the
SCHUBERT's. Investigator MONTEEN also met an Indian male from across
the street who's first name was John, who as well spoke highly of the
SCHUBERT's and their involvement in the church and neighborhood.
Another neighbor identified as Rosemary also agreed that these were
highly respectable people. Investigator MONTEEN also had the
opportunity to meet with John SCHUBERT's father, who was quite proud of
his son's business endeavors and indicated that his son was excited
about the opportunity to own this restaurant in Brooklyn Center.
Investigator MONTEEN then went to 1717 Beechwood Avenue, which is
located in the Highland Park area of St. Paul. There Investigator
MONTEEN stopped at 1721 Beechwood and 1711 Beechwood and found no one
at home. This stop was rather uneventful and nothing occurred to cause
any neighbors to come out of their homes and Investigator MONTEEN was
unable to speak to anyone. Investigator MONTEEN did note that the
residence was a two story colonial, well -kept and well landscaped in a
quiet neighborhood of bungalows, ranch style homes and colonials which
was probably built up around the mid -50's.
During the course of this investigation, MONTEEN could find nothing
which would preclude Brooklyn Center Restaurant, Inc., its president,
John Webb SCHUBERT, or Courtney John STOREY from receiving a license
for the on premises sale of noni malt beverages as applied
for.
17�
CITY
Z:j B OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENTER
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 20, 1985
RE: Deferment of Special Assessments
Attached hereto are the following:
a copy of Resolution 78 -87 which established our current policy
regarding deferment of special assessments
a copy of a questlonai.re which was sent to 25 Minnesota
Cities in February
- a copy of survey results
a copy of a summary-of the survey
a copy of Joe Oster's memo in which he recommends amendments
to the policy
- a copy of a resolution which would establish a new policy
as recommended in Joe's memo
a draft copy of an application for deferment for use if the
recommended policy is adopted.
I recommend that the matter be placed on the City Council agenda
as a discussion item at the June 24, 1985 meeting. If agreement
regarding details is reached at that time, the resolution can be
adopted as written, or as amended. If however, the Council requests
additional information or more time o consider onsider this matter I
recommend that it be tabled until July 8th. I do recommend that
the matter be resolved no later than July 8th so that our policy
is clearly established prior to the time we initiated special
assessment procedings (i.e. - notices, public hearings, etc.),
relating to our 1985 public improvements
Respectfully submitted,
SK: j #�
Member Gene Lhotka
and moved its adoption: introduced the following resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -87
RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER AND ESTABLISHING
AN INTEREST RATE.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides
for the deferment of special assessments and specifies the conditions
under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to
defer such assessments; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.194 authorizes the municipality
to establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assessment
which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center finds
and determines that deferral of special assessments for certain senior
citizens is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a deferred special
assessment policy for qualified applicants.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center does hereby approve of deferred special assessment
annual installments on all assessments certified after the adoption of
this resolution under the following conditions:
1) The property upon which the assessment is deferred must
be homesteaded;
2) The property is owned by a person at least 65 years of
age on January 1st of the payment year;
3) The household income is not to exceed $7,500.00 the year
preceding the payment year.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for that
particular assessment shall be added to the deferred assessment and
shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 435.195; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to
provide application forms, as may be necessary, and is authorized to
process said applications signed by the qualified persons prior to
September 1 of the preceding year of date which payment is due and
direct Hennepin County to defer the special assessments within said
application.
' RESOLUTION NO. 78 -87
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer assessments:,is
hereby terminated when the subject property owner no longer meets
the criteria established in this resolution.
May 8, 1978
Date
Mayo
ATTEST •
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Tony Kuefler and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist,
Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka and Celia Scott
and the following voted against the same none
.whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
f
t I _
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
B ROOK BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
LYN
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C EN
TER
TO: City Engineers /Directors of Public Works
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: February 28, 1985
RE: Deferral of Special Assessments for Age or Disability
We will appreciate your response to the following questions relating to deferral
of Special Assessments to persons over 65 or retired by virtue of disability,
as per Minnesota Statutes 435.193 to 435.195.
1. Has your City adopted a policy for deferral under these statutes?
2. If "Yes ":
a. please describe the standards and guidelines established for defining
the existence of a HARDSHIP.
and /or send a copy of
your policy resolution
or statement:
b. please describe the standards and guidelines established for defining
the existence of a DISABILITY.
and /or send a copy of
your policy resolution
or statement.
3. Auy comments?
4. Do you want a copy of our survey summary?
Your name
Address
City /Zip
Thanks for your cooperation. Please return in the enclosed stamped, self -
addressed envelope.
S Knapp
'74e ezr#
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS
i ----------------- I ----------------- I --------------------------------------------------------- ----------.......------.......................---------
f Bloomington/ -over 65 - average annual principle and interest due on all - current policy adopted in 1975
not identified special assessments exceeds 1.5% of annual income - deferment automatically terminates when:
-property value does not exceed $75,000 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified
- interest at the rate for that assessment shall be 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided
added to the deferred assessment 3. property no longer homestead
4. the City determines the owner is no longer in
the hardship category
f --------- ----- --- - ------ -- ----- - -- -------------------------- ------- -- --- -- ---------- -- ----- ---------------------------------------------------------
Brooklyn Park/ -over 65 - defers current and future special assessments if - current policy adopted in 1981
Charles Lenthe annual net income minus annual principle and interest - deferment automatically terminates when:
i payment on assessments does not exceed $1,2,000 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified
- Assessors estimated market valuation does not exceed 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided
$100,000 3. property no longer homestead
-owner has not signed petition for said improvement 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in
on current projects the hardship category
------- --- ------- --------- -- --- - -- -------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- -- --- - - - --- --------------------------- ------ -- ---------------- -- ----�
j Burnsville/ -over 65 -defers payment of any special assessment if annual - current policy adopted in 1981
Chuck Siggerud - permanent and gross income does not exceed $10,000 -deferment terminates and all amounts accumulated
total -the average annual payment for all assessments plus aplicable interest shall be due when:
disability exceeds 3% of owner's income 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified
-special assessments deferred must exceed $400.00 2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided
-total assets of owner and spouse do not exceed 3. property no longer homestead
$20,000 excluding homestead 4. the City determines the owner is no longer in
-City Council may consider exceptional and unusual the hardship category
circumstances if applicant not covered by above 5. failure to renew application
standards
------- ------- --- - ---------- ------ ------------------------ ---- --- ---- ----- --------- ---- -- -----------------------
Champlin/ -over 65 - annual principle and interest due on an assessment - current policy adopted in 1982
Sue Knight - permanent and , exceeds 2.5% of current annual income ( - interest rate applies to principle and interest of
total - Assessor's market valuation must not exceed $80,000 the assessment but shall not apply to the interest
disability of the deferment
------- -------- -- --------- --- --- -- --------------------------------------------------------- ---
Coon Rapids/ -over 65 -the only requirement is that one spouse must be
0 Bill Ottensman over 65
•- --------- - - - - -- - ---- --------- --- --------------------------------------------------------- ( -----------------
.......................................................................................................................................................
f CITY /CONTACT ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS
------- ---- ------ - ---------- - - ---- ------------------------- -------- ---------------- -- -- - -- ........................................................
Minnetonka/ - retired due - applicant's income must not exceed $13,500 - current policy adopted in 1984
to age (actual - certification may be made at any time following the
age is not adoption of the assessment roll by the City Council
specified ( - deferment of an assessment may not exceed 15 years
- retired as a
result of
permanent and
i total
disability
--- --- ----- ------ -- -- -- --- ------ -- ------------------------ --- ------------ ---- ------------ -------------------- ---------------- --
.I ---------------------------------------------------------
New Brighton/ -over 65 - average annual payments for all assessments levied - current policy adopted in 1977
Les Proper against the subject property exceeds 1% of adjusted - deferral terminates and all amounts accruing plus
gross income interest are due when:
i 1. owner dies and spouse is not qualified
2. property is sold, transferred or subdivided
3. loss of homestead status
i 4. the City council determines that no hardship exists
- ---- -- ---- - - - --- ----- ----- -- - - --- ---------------------------- ----------- ---- -- ------------ ----------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- - - - - -�
North St. Paul/ -over 65 - income of all owners does not exceed $11,000 - current policy adopted in 1981
Judy Auger -other persons
0 determined
r qualified by
the City
Council
- --- -- -- ---------I..--- --------- --- -----------.-.---------- ----------------------- ---- - - -- -------------------------------------------------------
.I _I
Plymouth/ -over 65 - Owners gross income does not exceed $13,500 for a one - current policy adopted in 1983
Fred Moore person household. Add $1,000 to qualifying income for - interest on deferred assessments shall cease to accrue
each additional person. on the original date for final payment of the
-property does not exceed 1 acre unless property is special assessment
a not subdivideable
1 ---- ----- -- - ----- --- --------- - ---- -------------------------- -- ----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------
Richfield/ ( -over 65 -gross household income does not exceed $11,000 - current policy adopted in 1981
Mike Eastling - permanent and -City Council may consider exceptional and unusual
{ total circumstances if applicant not covered by above
disability standard
------ --- --- - - --- ----- ------ ------ ------------------------- ------------------- --- ----- - --- --------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY /CONTACT I ELIGIBILITY I QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS I PARTICULARS
----------- - ----- ------- -- -------- ------------------------ --------------- ------------ ---- .......................................................
i' Roseville/ -over 65 - average annual assessments levied after July 27, 1981 - current policy adopted in 1981
Charles Honchettl - permanent and exceeds 1% of adjusted gross income (income does not - deferment terminates when:
total include Social Security, Retirement incomes, 1. owner dies and surviving owner does not qualify
disability Disability, Worker's Compensation) 2. request of property owner
3. propery is sold, transferred or subdivided
4. the City determines that no hardship exists
'- -- --- ----------- - -------- -------- --------------------------- ----- ------------ ------ -- ----- ---------------------------- ------ --- -- ------- --- -- - -----�
St. Cloud/ -low income - percent credit toward special assessment based upon ( - current policy adopted in 1984
Steve Gaetz HUD income guidelines - percent formula is:
p -retirement credit for adjusted income is $4,500 HUD Adjusted
F for retired single owner and $7,200 for retired Income (minus) Income X 100
married owner Guideline
---------------------------------------------
HUD
INCOME
GUIDELINE
i ----- ----- -- - - --- -- --------- ------ -------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ --- - - - - -- --------------------------- -- ------ ----------- ----- ----- -�
St. Louis Park/ -over 65 -total household income must be less than $10,500 - current policy adopted in 1980
B. Stepnick
e ----------------- i--------—-------- i---------—----------—--------------—------------------—-- i------------------------—-------------------------------- i
I
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT POLICY
TABLE OF RESULTS
Cities Responding to Survey:
Number of Cities: 18
Bloomington Edina North St. Paul
Brooklyn Park Fridley Plymouth
Burnsville Golden Valley Richfield
Champlin Maple Grove Roseville
Coon Rapids Minnetonka St. Cloud
Eden Prairie New Brighton St. Louis Park
Cities with Deferment Based on : Age Only:
Y
Number of Cities: 9
Bloomington Edina North St. Paul
Brooklyn Park Fridley Plymouth
Coon Rapids New Brighton St. Louis Park
City with Deferment Based on Age or Disability:
Number of Cities: 6
Burnsville Eden Prairie Richfield
Champlin Minnetonka Roseville
Cities with Deferment Based on Low Income:
Number of Cities: 1
St. Cloud
Cities Using Annual Income Basis of Qualification:
Number of Cities: 10
Brooklyn Park Minnetonka St. Cloud
Burnsville North St. Paul St. Louis Park
Eden Prairie
�. Plymouth
Edina Richfield
Statistics:
Mean: $12,572 Median: $12,750 Mode: $11,000 (2)
Cities Using Percent of Annual Income Basis of Qualificiation:
Number of Cities: 7
Bloomington Edina Roseville
Burnsville Fridley
Champlin New Brighton
Statistics:
Mean: 1.9% Median: 2% Mode: 1% (2)
2% (2)
0
Cities Using Both Methods:
Number of Cities: 2
Edina $15,000 and 2%
Burnsville $10,000 and 3%
TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
FROM: Joe Oster, Public Works Coordinator
DATE: June 18, 1985
RE: Deferment of Special Assessments
Attached is a resolution to update the City's deferment of
Special Assessment Policy established by Resolution 78 -87. The
attached resolution updates this policy and incorporates
particulars as we discussed. Also attached are h r supporting
PP g
documents, survey and survey results.
The following particulars are addressed:
1. Income qualification The new policy uses both annual
income and annual special assessment installment
percentage of annual income to determine financial
hardship. The purpose of this is that the flat annual
income method does not consider an applicants ability to
pay special assessments that may involve small annual
payments such as a tree removal. The percentage method
income does not consider that at some point it may not be
in the public interest to defer special assessments. It
is felt that combinin g the two methods overcomes the
weaknesses of either method.
2. HRA Income Guidelines The new policy ties the income
qualification to HRA Section 8 housing guidelines. It is
felt that this will help to keep this policy up -to -date.
While the income guideline may seem high ($17,400 in
1985), it should be pointed out that an annual payment of
an assessment must increase the aggregate total of annual
payments of assessments to 2% or more of annual income
and that if it occurs only the new special assessment is
deferred. It is felt that this is a more equitable
measurement of hardship.
3. Retirement Due to Permanent and Total Disability
Persons retired due to permanent and total disability are
added to the target group.
4. Termination of Deferral of Special Assessment The
deferral of special assessment does not automatically
terminate if an eligible applicant dies and the
applicant's spouse is not 65 years or older. In this
instance the surviving spouse does not have to meet the
age requirement since household income may be
significantly reduced and the hardship much greater. The
surviving spouse must meet the other requirements.
June 18, 1985 - Deferred Special Assessments
Page 2
It is felt that this policy is a better measurement of financial
hardship to pay annual installments of special assessments. It
is recommended that this resolution be adopted.
JGO:jn
Example: This example shows how five applicant would be affected
by the new deferment of special assessment policy on a
typical street reconstruction assessment of $1,200.
1 1 Previous I New I Percentage 1 Percent of Income Qualification i
1 Annual 1 Assessment ( Assessment 1 of payment 1 1% 1 1.5% 1 2% 1 2.5% 1 3% 1
1 Income i Payment 1 Payment 1 to Income 1
---------- ---------------------------------------------- o -------------------------------------- - - - - -1
Tpplicant #1 1 $17,400 1 $110 1 $264 I 2.10 1 Yes 1 Yes I Yes 1 No 1 No 1
i
------ ----------------------------------------------------- o -------------------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -1
, rpplicant #2 I $17,400 1 1 $264 1 1.50 1 Yes I Yes I No I No I No
I I I I I I I 1 1 1
-------------------------- ---- -- ------------------------- o---------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - --
7plirant #3 1 $13,700 1 $110 1 $264 1 2.70 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes I Yes 1 No 1
I I I I I I
_------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- -------- o----- ------- -------- -------- I------- - - - - --
;L,pplicant #4 I $13,700 1 1 $264 1 1.9% I Yes 1 Yes 1 No 1 No I No 1
..------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- -- - - - - -j
.applicant #5 1 $10,000 1 $110 1 $264 1 3.7% 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes
1 Yes ( Yes i
_.----------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------
I
T >pplicant #6 1 $10,000 I I $264 1 2.6% 1 Yes I Yes 1 Yes
Yes i No
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -I
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER
AND ESTABLISHING AN INTEREST RATE
------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195
provides for the deferment of special assessments and specifies
the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a
voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
found and determined that deferral of special assessments for
certain senior citizens is in the public interest and passed City
of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 78 -87 providing for deferment
of special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older and
establishing an interest rate; and
WHEREAS, economic conditions over the past seven years
have made it increasingly difficult for senior citizens to
qualify for deferment of special assessments due to the $7,500
income limitation and persons retired due to permanent and total
disability are not included in the present policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update the City's
Deferment of Special Assessments Policy and desires to develop a
policy that responds to ever changing economic conditions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby approve of deferred
special assessment annual installments on assessments that
qualify per conditions stated below:
1. Assessments must be certified after adoption of this
resolution.
2. The property upon which the assessment is deferred
must be homesteaded;
3. The property is owned by a person at least 65 years
of age on January lst of the payment year or owned
by a person who is retired due to a permanent and
total disability.
1
S
r`
RESOLUTION NO.
4. The applicant must have a "financial hardship"
defined as:
a. An annual income at or below the two person rate
established by HRA Section 8 housing guidelines
(two person household rate is $17,400 in 1985);
and
b. The first year's installment of the proposed
special assessment will increase the aggregate
total of installments against the property for
which deferment is requested to a sum equal to
2% of the applicant's income.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that interest at the rate for
that particular assessment shall be added to the deferred
assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and
provisions of Minnesota Statutes 435.195; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed
to provide application forms, as may be necessary , and is
authorized to process said applications signed by the qualified
persons prior to September 1 of the preceding year of date which
payment is due and direct Hennepin County to defer the special
assessments within said application.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the right to defer
assessments is hereby terminated when the subject property owner
no longer meets the criteria established in this resolution
except that a surviving spouse of a qualified applicant need not
meet the age requirement.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being
taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
2
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Application for Hardship Deferment of Special Assessments
Name: Phone:
Address:
I (we), furnish the following information to the City of Brooklyn
Center, to be used in evaluating my (our) request for deferment of
certain special assessments levied against my (our) property. I (we)
understand that deferment of payment of a special assessment is
possible for persons 65 years or older or who are retired due to total
and permanent disability as of January 1 of the payment year, whose
property is homesteaded according to the records of the City Assessor
on the date of the adoption of the assessment roll, whose income for
the year preceding the payment does not exceed the two person rate
established by HRA guidelines, and whose aggregate total of annual
installments of special assessments is at or exceeds two (2) percent
of household annual income.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Is property homesteaded (yes no ) Initials:
Lot Block Addition
Property I.D. No. - - - -
CONFIDENTIAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The amount of money my (our) household has received from all sources
during the year ending December 31, 19 is listed below.
I I Amount Received by
KIND OF INCOME I HUSBAND I WIFE (OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
ISalaries & Wage
I i I
( Social Security I
I
I Veterans Benefits I I I
I
( Other Retirement
I
I Money from Rents J
I
j Unemploy Insurance
j i I I j
j Worker's Compensation I I
I I I I I
I Disability Benefits
I
I
I
( All
TOTAL OF ALL INCOME HRA GUIDELINE
DISCLOSURE OF CURRENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
I I l Current Annual l
i Levy # I Improvement j Payment
I
I
I �
i
i Total of Current Annual Payments I
DISCLOSURE OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE DEFERRED
(List in ascending order of payment amount)
I J (Initial Annuall Aggregate
Lev I m p rovement y #I p I Payment j of Income j l
I I 1 1 L
I (we have completed this form and under penalties of perjury, declare
to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
this day of , 19
Signature of Applicant
Notary Public Signature of Applicant
NOTE PENALTY:
"Whoever, in making any statement, oral or written, which is required
or authorized by law to be made as a basis of imposing, reductin, or
abating any tax or assessment, intentionally makes any statement as to
any material matter which he knows is false may be sentenced, unless
otherwise provided by law, to imprisonment for not more than one year
or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both."
SECTION 609.41 MINNESOTA STATUTE
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Geralyn Barone, Administrative Assistant]
DATE: June 21, 1985 Jv"
SUBJECT: Senior Transportation Project
Attached you will find the five city Transportation Project Joint Powers Agree-
ment that has been revised after study by the various City Attorneys. Most of
the changes are minor, and any additions are indicated with an underline. The
major changes include the addition in section 2.2 of: "Appointment to the
committee shall be evidenced by a certified copy of a resolution of the
governing body of each city, filed with the City Manager of the City of New
Hope ". Section 3.32 was also changed to read "on or before July 1 of each
year ..." the budget for the following year shall be prepared. The last page
has also been corrected for the proper signatures.
At the May 20, 1985 City Council meeting the Council did approve the original
Senior Transportation Project Joint Powers Agreement. It will be necessary
for them to approve the minor changes made to the agreement.
REVISED 6/85
q
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF THE FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
This AGREEMENT is being made and entered into as
of the day of , 1985, by and between the
cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and
Robbinsdale, all municipal corporations of the State of Minnesota,
(hereinafter referred to collectively as the Five Cities and
individually as City)
WHEREAS, the Five Cities lie in close proximity to each
other; and
WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities have determined that
their respective populations age 60 and older have unmet
transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities currently sponsor and
support programs for their populations age 60 and older pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 471.15, et. sec.; and
WHEREAS, it would be a benefit to each and all of the
Five Cities to combine resources for the purpose of providing a
senior transportation program on a limited basis and have
determined that it is in their best interests to undertake this
project as a joint and cooperative project under Minn. Stat.
section 471.59; and
WHEREAS, the program would meet specific needs for the
populations of 60 years and older and would complement existing
transportation programs provided by other area agencies; and
WHEREAS, an executive committee, consisting of the City
Managers from the Five Cities, or representatives of the Cit
1
Manager, would administer the Senior Transportation Program; and
h
Y WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities would have equal
representation on the committee; and
WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities would receive a minimum of
15% of the availability of the Senior Transportation Program
services for its residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings
herein, the parties to this Agreement agree as follows:
SECTION 1
GENERAL PURPOSE
It is the general purpose of the parties to this Agreement
to jointly and cooperatively plan, provide, and administer a
senior transportation program in order to reduce to the greatest
practical extent the public expenditures necessary to provide
such a program.
SECTION 2
FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
2.1 Establishment There is hereby established the "Five
Cities Senior Transportation Executive Committee" (Committee)
whose membership shall be appointed in accordance with the
provisions of this section and whose duties shall be to carry out
the purposes contained herein.
2.2 Membership; A ointment The governing body of each of
the Cities shall appoint their City Manager and one additional
representative as members of the Committee to administer the
Senior Transportation Program. Each member shall have one vote.
Appointment to the Committee shall be evidenced by a certified
2
c opy of a resolution of the governing body of each C ity, filed
with the City Manager of the City of New Hope.
2.3 Lead City A Lead City will be determined b
- Y Y a
majority vote of the Committee. The Lead City shall assume the
responsibility for fiscal management and daily operations of the
Senior Transportation Program pursuant to the by -laws established
by the Committee.
2.4 Term Members of the Committee shall not have a fixed
term but serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the City
appointing the member.
2.5 Vacancies A vacancy on the Committee shall be filled
by the City whose representative position on the Committee is vacant.
A vacancy on this Committee shall occur by reason of any events
specified in Minn. Stat. Section 351.04 or by action of a
City removing the member from this Committee.
2.6 Compensation and Expenses Committee members shall not
be entitled to compensation or reimbursement for expenses
incurred in attending meetings, except to the extent that the
C ity appointing a member determines to compensate or reimburse the
expenses of the member in which case the obligation to make such
payments shall be that of the City and not that of the Committee.
2.7 Officers The Committee shall elect from its
membership a chair, vice - chair, a secretary and a treasurer and
such other officers as it deems necessary to reasonably carry out
the purposes of this Agreement. All officers shall hold office
for a term of one year or until their successors have been
elected by the Committee. An officer may serve only while a duly
3
y
appoin memb of the Committee and may be re- elected to an
office. A vacancy in an office shall be filled from the
membership of the Committee by election for the remainder of the
unexpired term of such office.
2.8 Quorum A majority of the Committee shall constitute a
quorum, but less than a quorum may adjourn a scheduled meeting
and from time to time.
2.9 Meeting Regular meetings of the Committee shall be
held at least once per year on a day selected by the Committee.
Special meetings will be held at the call of the chair or by any
three members by giving not less than 48 -hours written notice of
the time, place and purpose of the spe cial meeting delivered or
mailed to the residences of the Committee members.
SECTION 3
COMMITTEE POWERS N
A D DUTIES
3.1 Employment The Committee may contract for services,
may utilize, upon consent of the City and upon such terms as may
be agreed upon by the Committee and the City, existing staff of a
City, and may employ such other persons as it deems necessary.
Where staff services of a City are utilized, such services shall
not reduce the financial commitment of such City to the the
Committee.
3.2 By -Laws The Committee shall adopt by -laws for
conducting its business, including but not limited to the
establishment of sub - committees and their duties, the duties and
responsibilities of the officers, the detailing of meeting
4
procedures, the notice thereof, and preparation of minutes and
other related staff functions.
3.3 Financial Matters
3.31 Method of Operation The Committee may collect
and receive money and services subject to the provisions of this
Agreement from the Five Cities and.from any other sources
approved by the Committee and it may incur expenses and make
expenditures and disbursements necessary and incidental to effect
the purposes of this Agreement. Funds may be expended by the
Committee in accordance with procedures established herein.
Order- checks and drafts shall be signed by the treasurer and
either the chair or vice -chair or delegated to the Lead City. If
this responsibility is delegated to the Lead City, the procedures
of the Lead City for approving such expenditures shall be
followed. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of
the Committee by the chair and secretary.
3.32 Operating Funds On or before July 1 of each
year, the Committee shall prepare an operating budget for the
following year for the purpose of providing funds to operate the
Committee's business. The budget shall be recommended and
referred to the City for ratification only upon 2 /3rds of
approval of all members of the Committee. After approval, the
secretary shall certify the recommended budget to each City on or
before September 1 of each year, together with a statement
showing the amounts due from each City. Each City shall pay over
to the Committee the amount owing in two equal installments, the
first on or before January 31 and the second on or before July 31
of the following year.
5
3.4 Audit and Annual Reports The Committee shall cause to
be made an annual audit of its books and accounts and shall make
and file an annual report to the Five Cities once each year. Th e
audit shall include the following information:
a. the financial condition of the Committee;
b. the status of all Committee projects;
C. the business transacted by the Committee and other
matters which affect the interests of the Committee.
Copies of the annual report shall be transmitted to the clerk of
each City. All of the Committee's books, reports and records
shall be available for and open to examination by any member or
to an official of a City at all reasonable times.
3.5 Gifts, Grants, Loans The Committee may, within the
scope of this Agreement, accept gifts, apply for and use grants
or loans of money or other property from the United States,. the
State of Minnesota, a unit of government or other governmental
unit or organization, or any person or entity for the purposes
described herein; may enter into any reasonable agreement
required in connection therewith; may comply with any laws or
regulations applicable thereto; and may hold, use and dispose of
such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift,
rant loan
or
9 agreement relating thereto.
3.6 Contracts The Committee may make such contracts and
enter into any such agreements as it deems necessary to make
effective any power granted to it by this Agreement in accordance
with the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Minn. Stat. Section 471.59
a nd Uniform Municipal Contracting Act, Minns. Stat. Section
471.345.
6
3.7 Level of Service The level of Senior Transportation
Program service in the Five Cities and in each City shall be
determined by the Committee, but in no event shall any City
receive less than 15% (as determined by the by -laws) of the total
transportation service provided by the Committee. .
SECTION 4
TERMINATION, WITHDRAWAL
This Agreement may be terminated by action of four Cities
occurring within a ninety (90) day period commenc with the
action of any one City. Withdrawal of any member may be
accomplished by filing written notice with the Committee chair
and City managers of the other Cities. Withdrawal shall become
effective 60 -days after proper notice has been given. No
withdrawal from this Agreement shall be effective until the
withdrawing member has met its full financial obligations to the
C for the year of withdrawal and prior years. The
withdrawal of four Cities constitutes termination of the
Committee and this Agreement.
SECTION 5
DISSOLUTION OF COMMITTEE
The Committee shall be dissolved by termination of this
Agreement or upon unanimous agreement of all members.
Upon dissolution, all personal property of the Committee
shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with. monies on
hand after payment of all obligations, shall be distributed to
the Cities. Such distribution of assets shall be made in
7
h
proportion to the total contributions to the Committee for such
costs made by each City. All payments due and owing from a City
for operating costs or other unfilled financial obligations,
shall continue to be the lawful obligation of the City. The
withdrawal of Four Cities constitutes a termination of the
Committee and this Agreement.
SECTION 6
AMENDMENT
The Committee may recommend and refer amendments to this
Agreement to the Cities. Any amendments to this Agreement shall
be approved by unanimous vote of the Five Cities and shall be
acted upon by the members within 90 -days of referral and failure
of a City to approve an amendment within the 90 -day period is
deemed a disapproval by that City. Action on amendments shall be
evidenced by appropriate resolutions of the members filed with
the Committee and if approved shall become effective as of the
date all such filings have been completed unless a different
effective date is otherwise stated in the amendment.
SECTION 7
COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement and any amendment may be executed in several
counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one Agreement
or amendment, binding on all of the parties hereto
notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the
original of the same counterpart.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement as of the day of completed execution hereof by the
parties.
8
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By
Seal:
Dated:
City Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By
Seal:
Dated:
City Manager
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
By
Seal:
Dated:
City Manager
er g
CITY OF NEW HOPE
By
Seal:
Dated:
City Manager
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
By
Seal:
Dated:
City Manager
9
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 24, 1985 REVISES 6 1 )
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR
roo$� kdale East Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr.
Brookdale Plitt Theater 2501 County Rd. 10
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Red Lobster 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. _
T. Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
f of Police p�
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR
Advance Carter 850 Decatur Avenue
Twin City Novelty Co. 9549 Penn Ave. S.
MJ ef of Police
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. S.
T. J. Applebee's Brookdale Ctr. J�`_ Qau��
City Clerk
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
50's Grill 5524 Brooklyn Blvd.
Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N.
Donaldson's Brookdale Ctr.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Show Biz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. ,` Q
Sanitarian
GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE
au$ t'ch Disposal Service 10264 Xylite Street NE
Hilger Transfer Co. 8550 Zachary Lane
Peterson Brothers 18605 Lk. George Blvd. cJ�.QQJ,
Sanitarian,
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2106 55th Ave. N.
Central Park
Carnival Site 60th & Earle Brown Dr.
Earle Brown Days Committee 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Alaire Heating & Air Cond. 9000 Annapolis Ln.
Comfort Heating & Air Cond. 4721 33rd Ave. N.
uildin Official
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
W Ganto's Brookdale Ctr.
arle Brown Farm Apts. 1701 69th Ave. N. A
Sanitarian
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Richard D. Bergstrom 5400 Russell Ave. N.
i Renewal:
Lang- Nelson Associates Chalet Courts
Norman Chazin Four Courts Apts.
Norman Chazin Northlyn Apts.
Shingle Creek Tower Shingle Creek Tower Apts.
James Maas 6234 Brooklyn Blvd.
Richard Gautsch 5541 Bryant Ave. N.
Bill Arendt 5813 Dupont Ave. N.
Virgil L. Hillstrom 5907, 09 June Ave. N.
Jeffrey K. Vest 5557 Knox Ave. N.
Steve Bruggeman 4201 Lakeside Ave. #307
Patrick & Susan Mooney 4735 Lakeview Ave. N.
Richard & Elfreda Ploof 5319 , 21 Queen Ave. N.
Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Ave. N.
Cosmopolitan Apts. 3401, 3413 47th Ave. N.
G & B Enterprises 3501 47th Ave. N.
John & Susan Byrnes 3019 63rd Ave. N.
T.W. Thorbus 4300 63rd Ave. N.
Joe Hamm 4010 65th Ave. N.
Director of Planning
and Inspection
GENERAL APPROVAL: ,n
C,draid G. Sp ter, City Clerk
i
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
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
Bobcat, Inc Mpls., Mn. $3,825 ea. $7,650
Elliott Equipment Co., Davenport, Iowa 4,000 ea. 8,000
WHEREAS, the quotation received from Bobcat, 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
Bobcat, Inc. be accepted and the City Manager be authorized to purchase the
same from funds appropriated in the 1985 Budget.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Geralyn R. Barone, Personnel CoordinatorQ
DATE: June 24, 1985
SUBJECT: Conditions for Employment of Richard Plouman for the Position of
Superintendent of Streets and Parks
It will be necessary for the City Council to approve by a motion the special
conditions for employment of Richard Plouman for the position of Superintendent
of Streets and Parks. A motion is necessary so as not to conflict with City
Ordinance section 17 -111, subdivision 1 on vacation and Ordinance section
17 -112, subdivision 1 on sick leave.
The special conditions will allow Mr. Plouman to receive three (3) weeks
vacation accural upon employment and a bank of 100 hours of sick leave to be
available in the event of illness during the first year of employment. As
time passes during Mr. Plowman's employment with the City of Brooklyn Center,
he will be earning regular sick leave which will eventually supplant the 100
hours of bank sick leave.