Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011 06-13 CCP Regular Session
AGENDA • CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 13, 2011 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Miscellaneous 3. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Adjourn • Brooklyn Center Open Forum Registration Brooklyn Center Open Forum Registration M(k K ���f-e I A FC +S (k v� Date (r� A Date Name Na e be a re s s 1< i Phone l Lr- �-—) ✓C f-- LI Address 6 �'\'Phone 6( Add J- Subject s,- �D Subject fA i i r� ,)')-7 submit to Council Secretary prior to 6:45 p.m. submit to Council Secretary prior to 6:45 p.m. Brooklyn Center Open Forum Registration Brooklyn Center Open Forum Registration Name Date U - ?- - , 3 - 2e ,( '2 z 2 Ad d re ss P h o n e S Phone 612. 2-03- Subject Subject—/4--, submit to Council Secretary prior to 6:45 p.m. submit to Council secretary prior to 6:45 p.m. Why Should Brooklyn Center Change Its Ordinance to Allow Backyard Hens? An In-depth Review MI r ' 4 { r b i� L auren Fallsbau holds Agnes rAgg/e`�, her 2 year old Speckled Cochin hen. 6 Reasons Why Brooklyn Center Should Change Its Ordinance On Hens 1 . Backyard hens benefit the neighborhood and are good for the environment. (pages 2-3) 2. Hens provide fresh, healthy eggs without roosters. (pages 4-6) 3. Backyard hens are family pets, not farm animals or livestock. (page 7) 4. Hens are not a nuisance - they are clean and quiet. (pages 8-12) 5. The current ordinance is unnecessary in preventing nuisance (& a proposed change to the ordinance). (page 13) i i 6. The current ordinance is likely unconstitutional according to case law precedents in MN and elsewhere. (pages 14-15) i MAP .. - s Nearby cities & suburbs that allow hens: - Minneapolis - Saint Paul - Roseville Rosemount The Urban/Suburban Chicken Movement Chicken keeping is very popular among those who are concerned about the environment, among those concerned about nutrition, food safety and food security, and among those interested in self-sufficiency and preparedness. Dozens of newspaper and magazine accounts of communities which have changed their laws to allow chickens have been written. Several environmental and educational organizations here in Twin Cities offer classes in Beginning Chicken-Keeping, which have proven quite popular. (Appe nj; x) Hens Benefit Families And Neighborhoods Chickens Are Educational Chicken keeping offers suburban children the opportunity to learn where their food really comes from and about healthy, sustainable, nutritious food. They see first hand how kitchen scraps become garden fertilizer which in turn produces beautiful vegetables. Instead of simply hearing, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," they will actually experience it. Suburban kids can participate in 4H programs through keeping chickens in a suburban yard. Chickens & Emergency Preparedness Many governments are asking community members to prepare for emergencies, whatever the cause. With the recent tornadoes and severe weather, some members of our community recently experienced firsthand the effects of an area wide emergency on food supplies. Backyard chickens provide a constant stream of fresh eggs without regard to the availability of electricity or refrigeration. Backyard hens will help our community be more food self-sufficient under any circumstances. Chickens & The Economic Crisis The cost of food has risen dramatically lately, including the cost of high-quality protein-rich nutrient-dense food such as pastured eggs. Organic eggs cost over $4 a dozen at Cub Foods. In comparison, four or five backyard hens will require a total of about $60 in feed each year (mostly in the winter) and lay about 120 dozen eggs between them, depending on breed and age. That's a savings of over $400 a year. In addition, an egg provides about 7 grams of protein, which means those 120 dozen eggs — obtained at a cost of $60 per year -- will supply the complete protein needs of the average woman. The ability to raise some of your own food can help provide a greater sense of security in uncertain economic times. i Chickens .1 And The o Environment Water Quality and Runoff According to the OSU Extension Service (http-//ohioline.osu.edu/b804/804_3.html) the average laying hen produces .2 - .3 pound of droppings per day, as compared to the average dog which produces 1 pound (according to the National Pet Alliance.) Unlike dog and cat waste, chicken droppings can be composted for use on gardens and reduce the need for chemical fertilizers. Chickens reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides by eating bugs and weeds. By their very presence, chickens discourage the use of chemical lawn and garden sprays by their owners. Chicken keeping is likely to represent a net improvement in water and runoff issues rather than the opposite. Issues of manure runoff from egg-producing chickens are associated with huge factory-style egg farms that generate tons of manure each day in a very concentrated area. For those of us who wish to continue to eat eggs in a sustainable fashion, low-density backyard chicken keeping is the solution to runoff issues, not the problem. Gardeners using commercial organic fertilizers are very likely to be using chicken-manure based products, and those keeping chickens will have less need for even these. So keeping chickens won't increase even the net amount of organic fertilizers used; chicken-keeping gardeners will simply be producing it themselves rather than purchasing it. Greenhouse Gas Emissions In 2008 the City of Fort Collins, Colorado changed their city ordinance to legalize backyard hens. At the time, a thorough investigation was conducted on the environmental impact of residents keeping chickens. At that time, Environmental Planners in Fort Collins' Department of Natural Resources concluded that backyard hens would not significantly impact greenhouse gas emissions. (Appendix ). There's no reason to believe this would be any different here in Brooklyn Center. i 3 Living Sustainably Increasing numbers of us are interested in living more sustainably, and many communities, Brooklyn Center included, are encouraging citizens to reduce waste and consumption of resources. Backyard chickens allow us to reduce our carbon footprint by producing some of our own food. Every food item we can produce organically and on our own property—just outside our back door— is one less item that must be shipped to us and shopped for. Every item of food we raise ourselves represents a step in living a greener, more sustainable, lifestyle. People who have backyard chickens are less likely to use chemicals and pesticides in their yards and gardens because it's healthier for their chickens. In return the chickens eat weeds and bugs that normally plague unsprayed yards. Composted chicken manure is one of the most efficient natural fertilizers and is provided for free with no need for transport. Backyard chickens eat grass clippings which might otherwise end up in the landfills and food scraps which might end up in the garbage and sewage. Hens Provide Fresh, Healthy Eggs Without Roosters A hen will lay eggs with or without a rooster present. If you want fertilized eggs, then you do need a rooster. But all commercially-produced eggs found at the grocery store and the majority of eggs that people eat have not been fertilized. This is why you can't get baby chicks from putting store-bought eggs into an egg incubator. r` x How An Egg Is Formed After the yolk is formed in the hen's single ovary, the yolk drops into the body cavity. From there it goes into the infundibulum, or "funnel". It then starts it on its way down the oviduct. The oviduct is more than 2 feet long and produces the materials needed for the albumen (egg white), shell membranes, and shell. The egg color pigment is added in the last stages of this process. It takes twenty-four hours or more from the time the yolk is released until the completed egg is laid. Eggs From Backyard Chickens Are Healthier Eggs from backyard chickens have more nutrition than eggs from the grocery store: Most of the eggs currently sold in supermarkets are nutritionally inferior to eggs produced by hens raised on pasture. That's the conclusion reached in multiple studies, including a 2007 M.E. News egg testing project. Their testing found that, compared to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data for commercial eggs, eggs from hens raised humanely and allowed to forage for bugs and weeds (like backyard hens) on average contain: • 1/3 less cholesterol • 1/4 less saturated fat • 2/3 more vitamin A • 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids • 3 times more vitamin E • 7 times more beta carotene Read more: http.//www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal- Healthier-Eggs.aspx?page=4#ixzz 1 Okzz5guj Jc' These differing nutrient levels are most likely the result of the different diets of birds that produce these two types of eggs. True free-range birds eat a chicken's natural diet— all kinds of seeds, green plants, insects and worms, usually along with grain or laying mash. Factory farm birds never even see the outdoors, let alone get to forage for their natural diet. Instead they are fed the cheapest possible mixture of corn, soy and/or cottonseed meals, with all kinds of additives. Results From Other Studies: - In 1974, the British Journal of Nutrition found that pastured eggs had 50 percent more folic acid and 70 percent more vitamin B12 than eggs from factory farm hens. - In 1988, Artemis Simopoulos, co-author of The Omega Diet, found pastured eggs in Greece contained 13 times more omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids than U.S. commercial eggs. - A 1998 study in Animal Feed Science and Technology found that pastured eggs had higher omega-3s and vitamin E than eggs from caged hens. - A 1999 study by Barb Gorski at Pennsylvania State University found that eggs from pastured birds had 10 percent less fat, 34 percent less cholesterol, 40 percent more vitamin A, and four times the omega-3s compared to the standard USDA data. Her study also tested pastured chicken meat, and found it to have 21 percent less fat, 30 percent less saturated fat and 50 percent more vitamin A than the USDA standard. - In 2003, Heather Karsten at Pennsylvania State University compared eggs from two groups of Hy-Line variety hens, with one kept in standard crowded factory farm conditions and the other on mixed grass and legume pasture. The eggs had similar levels of fat and cholesterol, but the pastured eggs had three times more omega-3s, 220 percent more vitamin E and 62 percent more vitamin A than eggs from caged hens. - The 2005 study Mother Earth News conducted of four heritage-breed pastured flocks in Kansas found that pastured eggs had roughly half the cholesterol, 50 percent more vitamin E, and three times more beta carotene. Backyard Hens Are Family Pets, Not Farm Animals am 1 i Meet Aggie, Iris, Bug, and Buffy- the 4 happy, healthy, miniature Bantam/Cochin hens that are part of our family. Backyard hens are family pets. They are named just like our cats and dogs, and provide enjoyment for the whole family and others in the neighborhood. Just as there is a difference between barn cats and working dogs versus pampered indoor pet cats and dogs, there is a difference between chickens raised commercially versus backyard chickens. For thousands of years, chickens, like dogs and cats, have lived alongside people in backyards large and small in cities and small towns. Unlike a half-ton bull or 400- pound hog, a three-to-six-pound hen is not inherently a farm animal. The typical laying hen starts to produce eggs at four to six months, lays daily or every other day until she is 6, and then lives another two years. A crucial point is that for backyard chickens (unlike their counterparts on farms), the end of productivity does not bring on the end of life. Commercial chickens are bred to produce large numbers of eggs very quickly and then to be culled and used for such things as animal food and fertilizer. Suburban hens, however, are treated as individuals. They are given pet names, and when around age 6 they stop producing eggs, they are `retired' and treated solely as pets for the remaining year or two of their lives. Chickens are friendly, social, entertaining, low-maintenance, small, quiet, and inexpensive to keep. They are quieter and cleaner than most dogs. They uniquely offer suburban and city-dwelling children the opportunity to understand a little more clearly where their food comes from. And they offer all of us the opportunity to produce a little of our own food. Hens Are Not A Nuisance - _ i t.� 1 Portable daytime hen enclosure Inside of hen coop Hens Are Clean They don't smell. Chickens themselves do not smell. Any possible odor would come from their droppings, but 5 hens generate less manure than one medium-sized dog. The average chicken keeper is also a gardener, and (unlike the feces of dogs and cats, which carry pathogens and can't be composted) chicken droppings represent an excellent source of free organic fertilizer when composted. Unsanitary conditions can result in a buildup of ammonia in large-scale operations, which is why commercial poultry facilities often smell. This is not the case for small backyard flocks. The Proposed Ordinance requires that chickens and enclosures be maintained in a sanitary condition free from offensive odors. They are not messy. Chicken enclosures used in city and urban settings tend to be well-kept and are easily maintained. Small flocks are managed with a minimum of time and energy on the part of their owners. The Proposed Ordinance requires that enclosures be well-maintained. Lot size doesn't matter. Chickens require very little space. Shelter for four or five hens does not require any more space than that represented by many kitchen tables, and a run of 4 square feet per hen is sufficient to keep them happy and healthy. Households all over the country are keeping chickens on city and suburban lots. Whether a backyard chicken-keeper has a quarter of an acre or three hundred, he is likely to keep his hens in an enclosure with the same small footprint. +w . i�d . a-• Jam..- — __ They do not pose a public health risk. The type of Avian Influenza that is contagious to humans has not been found in North America. Bird Flu is spread by contact with the contaminated feces of wild migratory waterfowl. So the key issues are sanitation and contact with wild birds. Unlike rural farm birds which might co-mingle with migratory birds or drink from a shared pond, backyard chickens are contained in an enclosure and watered inside this enclosure. As reported in Newsweek Magazine (Appendix): ...as the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute (an environmental research group) pointed out in a report last month, experts including the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production have said that if we do see it, it'll be more likely to be found in factory-farmed poultry than backyard chickens. As GRAIN, an international sustainable agriculture group, concluded in a 2006 report: "When it comes to bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry farming is the solution, not the problem." Unlike cats and dogs which are prime vectors for rabies, parasites, and tick-borne diseases, backyard chickens actually keep your yard healthier for humans by eating ticks and other insects. Salmonella, which has been associated with raw eggs, is a problem only with factory- farmed eggs, not with backyard chickens. Hens Are Quiet AptE - s. Hens are quiet birds. It's only roosters that are known for loud morning crowing, and roosters are not necessary for the production of eggs. Like wild fowl, the occasional clucking of hens is generally not audible beyond 10-15 feet. Some hens give a few squawks while actually laying an egg or bragging about it afterward, but this noise is very short-lived and much quieter than barking dogs, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, passing trucks, car radios, children playing, and other common neighborhood sounds. Hens willingly go to sleep in their coop from 9pm - 9am and make no noises during the night or early in the morning. The Proposed Ordinance requires that hens be maintained in a manner free from excessive noise and that roosters are not permitted. Many Residential Neighborhoods Allow Hens Without Causing A Nuisance In addition to the nearby communities of Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Roseville, and Rosemount, many other cities, towns, and suburbs in Minnesota now allow chickens - including, but not limited to: Winona, Rochester, Mankato, Fergus Falls, Bloomington, Elk River, Wabasha, Spring Grove, Burnsville, Duluth, Grand Rapids, and Shoreview. The Proposed Ordinance offers Brooklyn Center residents protection in the unlikely case a neighbor would raise chickens in an irresponsible manner, but still allows the greatest possible freedom for members of our community. The Current Brooklyn Center Ordinance Prohibiting Chickens Isn't Needed To Prevent Nuisance Situations. There is already an ordinance prohibiting nuisance animals: (Taken from the City of Brooklyn Center Website) "Nuisance Animals It shall be unlawful to keep an animal in any unsanitary place or condition, in a manner which results in noisome odors, or in any way which constitutes a nuisance or a disturbance by reason of barking, howling, fighting, or other noise or to maintain a condition that unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any person or property." Pr k e- i' v � I The History Of Chickens And Suburban Development Why Were Chickens Prohibited by Earlier Lawmakers? In the post-WWII decades, many urban and suburban communities around the country instituted laws intended to distance us from our then-unfashionable rural roots. It was a time when neighborhoods were built without sidewalks, "ChemLawn" seemed like a great name for a business, and keeping chickens in the backyard served as an uncomfortable reminder of the fact Grandma used to slaughter a hen on the back porch every Sunday morning. Suburbanites seeded their lots with grass, installed lawn sprinklers, sprayed and sprayed and sprayed, and passed laws prohibiting chickens in urban and suburban backyards. The birth of the modern suburb was a time when many of us were seeking to define ourselves as sophisticated and more like those in the cosmopolitan city than like those in unfashionable rural small towns and farming communities. The car was a symbol of that cosmopolitan lifestyle, so we eliminated sidewalks —why, after all, would anyone walk who could afford to drive? The sidewalk became a symbol of poverty and backwardness. Later generations regretted that decision and many have retrofitted sidewalks and streetlights in their neighborhoods. The keeping of chickens and other food-producing animals was also unfashionable during the decades immediately following World War II, and for similar reasons. The problem wasn't one of chickens creating a nuisance; it was one of wanting to seem modern, cosmopolitan, and sophisticated. In recent years, many of us have started to realize that maintaining a close connection to our food is a positive, not a negative, and is a part of living a more sustainable lifestyle. Farmers' Markets are popular and thriving in our area, people are gardening more, and communities around the nation are changing their decades-old laws forbidding the keeping of chickens. All over the metro, people are keeping chickens without causing problems for their neighbors, their community, or their property values. We see examples in our neighbors living in Minneapolis and Saint Paul, as well as suburbs like Roseville and Rosemount. As you've read in this handout, there are so many reasons to find a way to allow rather than prohibit chickens in the suburbs. + s s tai aid � ' I � There Are Leso ResWcUve Ways Of Achoc ve ng The Same GaM Proposed Changes It is proposed that chickens be removed from Section 19-104. If the city feels chicken-keeping needs to be controlled more than is already adequately addressed by the current animM nuisance ordinance, it is proposed that an ordinance pertaining only to chickens be created. The following ordinance pertaining to chickens is then proposed (Proposed Ordinance)- 1 . Single family Gnomes within the City of Brooklyn Center shall be permitted to keep laying hens for pets and household (not commercial) egg gathering. 2. Roosters are prohibited. 3. Chickens and their enclosures must not be visible from the street. 4. Enclosures must be secure and well-maintained. 5. Chickens and their enclosures must be kept in a neat, clean and sanitary condition, free from offensive odors, excessive noise, or any other condition that would constitute a nuisance. It is unnecessary to require licensing of hens, just as Brooklyn Center does not require licensing of dogs, cats, or any other animals. There is also no need for setback requirements, as outdoor dogs - much more likely to jump on fences or bark loudly at neighbors, as well as produce five times the amount of excrement - are not required to be kept any distance from the property line. And as signatures of consent are not needed for neighbors to own dogs (large or small, noisy or not), it similarly does not make sense to require hen owners to acquire such consent. These types of unnecessary restrictions do not produce better animal owners and in many cases can be struck down as unconstitutional in the face of established property rights. In the unlikely case that an animal owner is neglectful, their animals will be a nuisance (whether that be dogs, cats, chickens, etc). Since Brooklyn Center already has an animal nuisance ordinance in place, Brooklyn Center residents would remain protected. 13 Our Current Ordinance Is Likely Unconstitutional according to case law precedents in MN and around the country The following is a quick summary of just 3 of the many related cases striking down prohibitive ordinances and declaring them unconstitutional. 1. Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 1997 In a Minnesota case brought against the City of Sauk Rapids, judges declared a city ordinance unconstitutional when it found that: "Ownership of dogs and other pets is a property right which is protected by the Constitution." (District Court Judge Thomas P. Knapp, June 5, 1997) And therefore city ordinances must respect those property rights when creating city ordinances. Furthermore: "The judge found for the plaintiffs on the Constitutional grounds that the city had abused its power to create laws that promote the general health, safety, and welfare of the citizens... He said that the city failed to provide relevant evidence that the laws were needed." This basically means that while cities have the right to create laws protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, there needs to be relevant evidence that the laws enacted are actually needed - that there is a real problem that they are solving or preventing. 2. Commonwealth v. Creighton, 1994 In a Pennsylvania case brought against the Borough of Carnegie (just outside of Pittsburgh), judges declared an ordinance limiting residents to five pets unconstitutional when it found that: "Even legitimate legislative goals (controlling nuisances) cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can be otherwise more reasonably achieved." In other words, it was found that communities need to look towards the least restrictive methods available when striving for their goal of eliminating or preventing nuisances. fy One judge quoted from Kadash vs City of Williamsport, 1975: "What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited." Which is to say, a community cannot arbitrarily decide that something is a problem when it has never proven itself to be a problem. Laws prohibiting things that are not really nuisances are not valid. 3. City of Springdale v. Chandler, 1953 In an Arkansas case brought against the City of Springdale, judges struck down an ordinance restricting or prohibiting the keeping of chickens on private property. They agreed with a previous ruling: "A municipal corporation can not declare that to be a nuisance which is not a nuisance per se. Merrill v. City of Van Buren, 125 Ark. 248, 188 S.W. 537. " This basically means that there needs to be evidence that an animal, by its very nature, causes a nuisance. Since responsibly-kept and properly-cared-for hens are quiet and clean, municipalities cannot arbitrarily label them a nuisance and then prohibit them based upon this baseless, meaningless label. They stated: "A city may regulate the keeping of chickens, but whether such regulation is arbitrary or unjust depends on evidence. It might be arbitrary to prevent the keeping of a [222 Ark Page 169] few hens at a place where it would not be arbitrary or unjust to prevent the keeping of thousands of chickens." In other words, while communities could determine that the keeping of many chickens could be a nuisance, it is doubtful that they could prove that the proper keeping of a handful of hens would ever be a nuisance. 1 Examples of Upcoming June Classes on Chicken-Keeping in the Twin Cities: htt :llw�fw.eventbrite.com/event/1 547461400 Urban Chickens 101 Tuesday, June 14, 2011 from 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM (CT) Saint Paul, United States Cost: $10 Fresh eggs and crazy chicken antics are just two good reasons to keep a few hens in the backyard. This class will cover everything you need to know to start up a small flock of chickens in your backyard, with an emphasis on coop design for weathering Minnesota winters. Taught by Al Bourgeois htt€ :1/ �.threerivers arks,€ rc /events!Cfchickens-in-your-back ard.as x Chickens In Your Backyard Saturday, June 19th from 9:30-12:30 7210 County Rd. 110 W., Mound, MN Would you like to collect fresh eggs every day from your very own chickens? You don't need a farm or lots of land to keep laying hens for a hobby. Come to this class and learn everything you need to know about raising chickens. Families welcome. htt ://e lantsu 4 .com/CIasses,html Backyard Chicken Basics - Bob Lies Saturday, June 25, 1:00-3:00 pm Cost: $10 Taught by EgglPlant co-owner Bob Lies. Bob and Audrey have kept chickens in their St. Paul backyard for the last four years. They started their chicken adventures raising chicks for the Student Organic Farm at the University of Minnesota, and have experienced the joys of keeping chickens in the city. This class will cover all aspects of backyard flock management in the Twin Cities: choosing suitable varieties, raising chicks, coop and run requirements, feed and nutrition, common health issues, predators, cold-climate care, chickens in the garden, composting chicken waste, etc. There will be plenty of time for questions, and hands-on time with live chicks and hens. Firom: 19rign Woc-cl,ruff_ itsal Planner. Departni iut of Maturall Resource To- comevol) t`}a : 4.tur-IQ 13. 2ACt_R tthje t. U pdate on Ghi�aken Gas i Ir�,)vo taken the TiEbeirly of estimating the impaut On re t-lboutie ,1-- I " a ernis=7i sn% fr(,im ustab hens, in Order to 1pndweight to Lucirida's earlier comrncmt, on USEPA, tha t chickens r s r n ins icl cif ant sutarc, they a re r'iort Regarding mrattiaite (tutri Ghicken matlure, uvun if*---vcry 1toUSe•hold Ia�rl Mx hens today,theit combined ccnWbutior� to GHG in Fort ollin would be only 202,000 kilugmms of CO2 equivalent, or curtly 0.Crt}19 percent of the total 01-10k invontory, I°w old allso argue `t',at'ti-te r�SUC' i' Moot, bet•4ALse an it-icrea,,,e in the nurnber rat urban huts v1ouW be offset by a-aecrwas�e the nr,nlber of non-urban hens. i..E., assuming that uvetntl egg c,unstrmptimi would not change, farn les that t kc cgg5 from tht-i Qwn fens would ;stop buyinr_I tlre-rry frrren elReurtsete_ Am3umptions, it yolt nco-d t'am. 1. nnethane prOrdtrttion �. 0.05 kgfhenlyrpar jthe rnedian of values >i-r7er-Joncd by Coiirir-.Ainenib--r Troxelil 2. ntimber of ,,►taglei-fam lyr-�letaclied hou-schc*11� = 3 000 lbased on 240f�data T renttprkj 3- total c=#NC-. inventory = 2,467.000 tonslyear = 224 billion k tQgr.Ir,IIWyear f2Q9 data] 4. cAculation: 31 ,0010 x 6 hom0hou inhold x 0 05 kq CH-Al on.year x 21 C.02ifA'H4 -- 202,00V kg CO20%jccir Acpesnd i x i The Secret to Selling Your Home April 27, 2019 mw Nr http://janicecole.net/2011/04/the-secret-to-selling-your-home/ Trying to sell your home in this down market? Wondering what the secret to a quick sale might be? Recently, a friend of mine found the answer: a chicken coop in the backyard. She and her husband sold their suburban home a few weeks ago after less than one week on the market. Turns out that the deal clincher was their chicken coop out back. It seems that the prospective buyers and their children love chickens (as we all do), and inquired whether the chicken coop would stay with the property. When told yes, then to sweeten the deal the buyers asked that the chickens be left with the coop. Sold! Who Could Resist? My friends gladly let their small flock stay in their home, secure in the knowledge they wouldn't have to uproot them. I'm not sure I'd be willing to part with my flock the way my friends so generously did, however. They didn't have a ready-made coop to move their flock to so I think they made the right decision. I can see the potential of this with future sales. The real estate agent and home stager had both downplayed my friend's chicken coop by ignoring it, probably wishing they could remove it like an extra piece of furniture, and surely hoping buyers wouldn't notice it. You can bet the next home with a coop this agent sells, however, will be advertised as "Three bedroom well-maintained home includes newly updated chicken coop with good ventilation and views, surrounded by nutritious gardens." Just consider the possibilities of poultry or other pets being included in a home sale. I'll bet many people would be willing to consider it, if it means getting that sold sign hung. We may soon see ads for"Gracious four bedroom home, gourmet kitchen with granite countertops, spacious yard with dog house and pedigree Yorkshire terrier included." Seriously though, the interest in chicken coops, vegetable gardens and a sustainable lifestyle has become very important to many people. I know there are buyers who would be very interested in property that included coops, gardens, and even old-fashioned root cellars for storing canned goods and garden vegetables. If you have any of these features and are thinking of selling your home, you would do well to promote them. Before long we may see ads that feature these items and then add: "Suburban Home Also on Grounds." hVe-I d►x craze The New Coop de Ville The r urban poultry farming. by Jessica BennettNovember 17, 2008 http:l/� v,_nev week.com!2fl08111f161the-new-coo -de-ville.htmi For Brooklyn real-estate agent Maria Mackin, the obsession started five years ago, on a trip to Pennsylvania Amish country. She, her husband and three children—now 17, 13 and 11— sat down for brunch at a local bed-and-breakfast, and suddenly the chef realized she'd run out of eggs. "She said, 'Oh goodness! I'll have to go out to the garden and get some more'," Mackin recalls. "She cooked them up and they were delicious." Mackin and her husband, Declan Walsh, looked at each other, and it didn't take long for the idea to register: Could we have chickens too? They finished their brunch and convinced the bed-and-breakfast owner, a Mennonite celery farmer, to sell them four chickens. They packed them in a little nest in the back of their Plymouth Voyager minivan and headed back to Brooklyn. The family has been raising chickens ever since, in the backyard of their brick townhouse in an urban waterfront neighborhood called Red Hook. Every Easter, Mackin orders a new round of chicks, now from a catalog that ships the newborns in a ventilated box while they are still feeding from their yolks. When they are grown, she offers up their eggs—and occasionally extra chickens, when she decides she's got too many—to friends and neighbors, and sells a portion to a local bistro, which touts the neighborhood poultry on its Web site. She gives the chicken manure—a high-quality fertilizer—to a local community garden in exchange for hay, which she uses to pad the chickens' wire-fenced coop. Occasionally, she kills and cooks up a chicken for dinner—though, she says, her chickens are egg layers and aren't particularly tasty. "We joke and call ourselves the Red Hook Poultry Association," says the former social worker, who at one time housed 27 chicks inside her kitchen—for six weeks. "Sometimes people are like, 'This is really kind of weird'." As it turns out, Mackin is hardly an anomaly, in New York or any other urban center. Over the past few years, urban dwellers driven by the local-food movement, in cities from Seattle to Albuquerque, have flocked to the idea of small-scale backyard chicken farming—mostly for eggs, not meat—as a way of taking part in home-grown agriculture. This past year alone, grass-roots organizations in Missoula, Mont.; South Portland, Maine; Ann Arbor, Mich.; and Ft. Collins, Colo., have successfully lobbied to overturn city ordinances outlawing backyard poultry farming, defined in these cities as egg farming, not slaughter. Ann Arbor now allows residents to own up to four chickens (with neighbors' consent), while the other three cities have six-chicken limits, subject to var i ous spacing and nuisance regulations. That quick growth in popularity has some people worried about noise, odor and public health, particularly in regard to avian flu. But avian flu has not shown up in wild birds, domestic poultry or people in the United States. And, as the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute pointed out in a report last month (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5900), experts including the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production have said that if we do see it, it'll be more likely to be found in factory-farmed poultry than backyard chickens. As GRAIN, an international sustainable agriculture group, concluded in a 2006 report: "When it comes to bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry farming is the solution, not the problem." Append ix Many urban farmers are taking that motto to heart. In New York, where chickens (but not roosters, whose loud crowing can disturb neighbors) are allowed in limitless quantities, there are at least 30 community gardens raising them for eggs, and a City Chicken Project run by a local nonprofit that aims to educate the community about their benefits. In Madison, Wis., where members of a grass-roots chicken movement, the Chicken Underground, successfully overturned a residential chicken ban four years ago, there are now 81 registered chicken owners, according to the city's animal-services department. "There's definitely a growing movement," says 33-year-old Rob Ludlow, the Bay Area operator of Backyard Chickens.com and the owner of five chickens of his own. "A lot of people really do call it an addiction. Chickens are fun, they have a lot of personality. I think people are starting to see that they're really easy pets—and they actually produce something in return." Because chickens can be considered both livestock and pet, farming them for eggs—or keeping them as pets—is unregulated in major cities like New York and Los Angeles. But it isn't legal everywhere. According to one recent examination by urban-agriculture expert Jennifer Blecha, just 65 percent of major cities allow chickenkeeping, while 40 percent allow for one or more roosters. (Hens don't need roosters to lay unfertilized eggs.) Chicken slaughter, meanwhile, tends to fall under a separate (and generally stricter) set of regulations, though they're not always enforced. Most cities that allow chicken farming limit the number to four or six per household, so many urban farmers aren't raising enough chickens to slaughter and sell anyway—though they may cook up a meal or two at home. If they want to slaughter more, there are mobile slaughterhouses in places like Washington state that will do the dirty work for you: USDA-approved refrigerated trucks will pull right up to your doorstep. I Chicken farmers are finding each other on sites like TheCitvChicken.com, UrbanChickens.or -and MadCit yChickens.com. BackyardChickens.com logs some 6 million page views each month and has some 18,000 members in its forum, where community members share colorful stories (giving a chicken CPR), photos (from a California chicken show), even look to each other for comfort. "I am worried that non-BYC people won't understand why a 34-year- old woman would cry over a $7 chicken," writes a Stockton, N.J., woman, whose chicken was killed by a hawk. Over at Ur anChickens.org, which launched this year, founder K. T. LaBadie, a master's student in community planning, provides updates on city ordinances, info about local chicken- farming classes and coop tours and has been contacted by activists hoping to overturn chicken bans around the nation. In Albuquerque, where she lives with her husband and four chickens—Gloria, Switters, Buffy and Omelet—residents can keep 15 chickens and one rooster, subject to noise ordinances, as well as slaughter the chickens for food. Meanwhile, at MadCit iChickens.com, the Web site created by the Madison Chicken Underground, chat-line operator Dennis Harrison-Noonan has turned his chicken love into a mini-business: he's sold 2,000 design kits for his custom-made playhouse chicken coop, which retails for $35. "It's really not that crazy to think that people are doing this," says Owen Taylor, the urban livestock coordinator at Just Food, which operates the New York Chicken Project. "Most of the world keeps chickens, and they've been doing so for thousands of years." A�Ppehdix Historically, he's right. During the first and second world wars, the government even encouraged urban farming by way of backyard "Victory Gardens" in an effort to lessen the pressure on the public food supply. (Until 1859, there were 50,000 hogs living in Manhattan, according to Blecha.) "It's really only been over the last 50 years or so that we've gotten the idea that modernity and success and urban spaces don't involve these productive animals," Blecha says. There are a host of reasons for the growing trend. "Locavores" hope to avoid the carbon emissions and energy consumption that come with transporting food. Chicken owners and poultry experts say eggs from backyard chickens are tastier and can be more nutritious, with higher levels of supplements like omega-3 fatty acids. Their production cost is cheap: you can buy chickens for as little as a couple of dollars, and three hens will likely average about two eggs a day. You can also use their waste to help revitalize a garden. "There've been recalls on everything from beef to spinach, and I think people want to have peace of mind knowing their food is coming from a very trusted source," says LaBadie. "As gas prices go up, and people realize how food is connected to oil and transportation, they are bound to realize they can get a higher quality product cheaper if they get it locally." Keeping a chicken is relatively easy, too—assuming you don't get too attached. They'll eat virtually anything—"pork products, string cheese, even Chinese takeout," she laughs—and they feed on bugs and pests that can ruin a garden. They can withstand harsh weather conditions. (In one oft-told tale, a Maine woman lost her chicken in a blizzard and found it, a day later, frozen solid with its feet stuck straight in the air. She thawed it and administered CPR. The chicken made a full recovery.) And much like New Yorkers, not much bothers chickens grown in urban environments. "[Those] raised in a really controlled environment like factory farms are very fragile, both physically and emotionally," says Blecha, who lives in St. Paul, Minn., with her partner and six chickens. "My chickens, I mow the lawn a foot away from them and they don't even look up from their pecking." But even urban chickens, who can live more than five years, can die easily: from predators like dogs or possums, catching a cold or sometimes for no apparent reason at all. Once, one of Mackin's chicks got stuck in a glue trap. She drowned it, to put it out of its misery. "That was really sad," she says. But the overall experience seems to be positive for everyone. "We have people calling weekly to say, 'This is really cool'," says Patrick Comfert, a spokesman for Madison's animal-services department, where the chicken ban was reversed in 2004. "Chicken people love it, the neighbors don't care, we have no complaints." Minneapolis enthusiast Albert Bourgeois sums up the appeal. "Chickens are really fun pets," he says. His flock is named Cheney, Condi, Dragon, Fannie and Freddie. The next one, he says, will be Obama. Proposed Ordinance Changes A. Remove chickens/pouNKry from ordinance 19-1004. R. Create an ordinance specifically relating to chickens: Chickens are allowed for home owners under the following condHUoviso 1 . 5ingl- family homes witWn the City of Brooklyn Center shall be permitted to keep laying hens for pets and household (not commercial) egg gathering. 2. Roosters are prohibited. 3. Chickens and their enclosures must not be visible from the street. 4. Enclosures must be secure and well-maintained. 5. Chickens and their enclosures must be kept in a neat, clean and sanitary condition, free from offensive odors, excessive noise, or any other condition that would constitute a nuisance. It is unnecessary to require licensing of hens, just as Brooklyn Center does not require licensing of dogs, cats, or any other animals. There is also no need for setback requirements, as outdoor dogs - much more likely to jump on fences or bark loudly at neighbors, as well as produce five times the amount of excrement - are not required to be kept any distance from the property line. And as signatures of consent are not needed for neighbors to own dogs (large or small, noisy or not), it similarly does not make sense to require hen owners to acquire such consent. These types of unnecessary restrictions do not produce better animal owners and in many cases can be struck down as unconstitutional in the face of established property rights. In the unlikely case that an animal owner is neglectful, their animals will be a nuisance (whether that be dogs, cats, chickens, etc). Since Brooklyn Center already has an animal nuisance ordinance in place, Brooklyn Center residents would remain protected. CITY COUNCIL MEETING ` City of Brooklyn Center June 13, 2011 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum with City Council-6:45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation—7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4. Roll Call 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items 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 Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1. May 23, 2011 —Study Session 2. May 23,2011 —Regular Session 3. May 23, 2011 —Work Session 4. June 6, 2011—Joint Work Session with Financial Commission 5. June 6, 2011 —Executive Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2011-77 and Approving the Correct Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011-009 Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik(For Gatlin Development Company) d. Resolution Approving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Action Plan and Authorizing Submittal of Plan to the Metropolitan Council e. Resolution Adopting a "Request for Proposals for Providing Financial Advisory Services"Document CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 13, 2011 • f. Resolution Declaring Approval of Annual Performance Measures - 7. Presentations / Proclamations /Recognitions/Donations a. Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Susan Shogren Smith for Her Dedicated Public Service on the Financial Commission Requested Council Action: — Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation from CenterPoint Energy for a $2,500 Grant to be Used for the Purchase of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) Requested Council Action: — Presentation of $2,500 grant by CenterPoint Energy. — Motion to adopt resolution. C. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the $9,800 Grant from the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company to be Used to Purchase a Thermal Imaging Camera Requested Council Action: — Presentation of $9,800 grant by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. — Motion to adopt resolution. • 8. Public Hearings g None. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 Submitted by Linda McGinty for the Luther Company, LLP. Request for Preliminary Plat/Subdivision Approval to Combine Five Existing Parcels into Three Parcels for Future Redevelopment of the Site (4011, 4101, 4215 69th Avenue, 6700 & 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 26, 2011, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 Submitted by Linda McGinty for the Luther Company, LLP Requested Council Action: — Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Adopting Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2010 Requested Council Action: — Motion to adopt resolution. i • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 13, 2011 • b. Resolution Establishing Fees for Community Garden Plots Regulated by the City of Brooklyn Center —This item was tabled at the May 10, 2010, meeting. Requested Council Action: — Motion to remove item from table. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment Agenda Items Tabled or Continued An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter, Sections 4.01 and 4.02 —This item was first read on April 12, 2010; was published in the official newspaper on April 22, 2010; and the Public Hearing was continued at the May 10, 2010, meeting until such time as the Charter Commission makes its recommendation to the City Council. i • AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION • June 13, 2011 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation on "No Smoking in the Parks" Policy 2. Update on Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 1) 3. 2011 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Request for Proposals (RFP) 4. Designating City Commission to Provide Review and Input on the Watershed Management Plan 5. Report on Shingle Creek Towers Sale 6. Preview of New City Website PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later /Ongoing • 1. Progress Reports on Achievement of Strategic Goals g p g 2. School District Discussions/BC Strategic Plan Report 3. All City Open House 4. Sister City Update 5. Neighborhood Designations 6. Active Living Program 7. Graduated Sanitary Utility Rate Study 8. Garbage Hauler Organized Collection Update 9. Financial Commission Report — Utility Collection 10. Youth Participation Request 11. Highway 252 Update — June 2011 12. Annual Department Year End Reports • • Cit y Council g 'A ends Item No. 6a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 23, 2011 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Pro Tern Kay Lasman at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson (arrived at 6:13 p.m.) and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager /Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS • Councilmember Ryan requested discussion on Item 10d, Resolution Approving Development Agreement (Shingle Creek Crossing), specifically Section 6.5, Subordination of Agreement, and asked which agreements would be subordinate. City Manager Curt Boganey explained the language indicates the City understands that prior to mortgaging the development the improvements have to be built out, which will require a construction loan. Any loan the City has is subordinate to the construction loan. Then, when the project is complete, WalMart will have a mortgage on this land and the City's mortgage will become subordinate to that mortgage. Councilmember Ryan requested discussion on Section 4.8, Prevailing Wages; Underemployed Local Labor. He expressed concern about the potential for members of the Association of Building Contractors in Minnesota to evade paying prevailing wages through "friendship programs." Councilmember Ryan stated he did not want to subject the developer to too many conditions but perhaps the contract language could be revised to strike wording after subparagraph (a) or to change the last word of paragraph (a) from "or" to "and." Mayor Willson arrived at 6:13 p.m. Mr. Boganey explained that based on staff's conversations with the developer, the word "or" is what makes it acceptable to the developer and if that language is changed, it may be a deal breaker. Mr. Boganey advised the development agreement language was modeled after several projects in Minneapolis that were successful in achieving the major goals to hire local labor as much as possible, apprentices that needed to develop, and to work in cooperation with nonprofit • colleges /schools that develop construction labor. 05/23/11 -1- DRAFT Mr. Boganey explained the developer wants the flexibility to hire the lowest bid contractor that can get the job done. Mayor Willson stated the City needs to assure quality materials and • project. Mr. Boganey concurred that will be the case. Councilmember Ryan stated the developer may hire one big general contractor for the project and union shops may be used. He referenced Section 4.8 relating to the use of apprentices and paying a lower wage than supported by the union. Mayor Willson noted that paying prevailing wage relates to the wage of the area, not just hiring union employees. Mr. Boganey stated he believed it will come down to what is happening in the market place; that who gets hired will reflect the competition in the market. Councilmember Roche requested discussion on Item 9a, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -09 for Shingle Creek Crossing. He stated his support for revisions to the PUD Architectural Design Guidelines to change the wording of "should" and "may" to shall and "should be /are encouraged" to shall be required He noted this is a Town Center design so banners and flower pots are basic elements. Mr. Eitel stated staff and the developer are working on the final streetscape details. Councilmember Roche stated his strong support to require a fountain in the pond to provide aeration, cleanse the water, and create an icon outside the tower on Highway 100. In addition, it will enhance the site, provide curb appeal, and eliminate scum from the pond. Mayor Willson stated he does not find the information provided to comprise a complete package. • He asked what else needs to be included, such as the development plan. Mr. Eitel noted that. advancement of the $1.4 million will be conditioned on the final plan, which will come before for EDA for approval. At that time, there will be discussion on banners, streetscaping enhancements, fountain, etc. Mr. Eitel explained the developer has indicated they will include a pond fountain but the project engineer has indicated that location is depressed about 10 feet so you may not be able to see the fountain. Mr. Eitel advised that the Council will be asked to approve every site plan as it goes forward along with a Planning Commission recommendation. The EDA will approve the site plan on the EDA's property prior to conveyance of that property. Mayor Willson asked whether this developer will show a good faith effort by July 1. Mr. Boganey explained that if everything on the agenda tonight is approved, nothing would preclude the developer from moving forward with the project to buy the land, close on that purchase, and start demolition of the building. It was noted that demolition will take several months to complete. Mayor Willson asked about the Sears Tolling Agreement and if it would be discussed at a closed session to address possible court action. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained the meeting could be closed to ask questions or the matter can be discussed at the regular meeting. • 05/23/11 -2- DRAFT The Council discussed the Tolling Agreement and asked questions of staff regarding the best • position for the City. Councilmember Ryan stated it appears the Council has some issues and asked if the Council is not better advised to take the matter into Executive Session to assure the City's position is not prejudiced. Mr. LeFevere stated discussion of the City's strategy, should a suit occur, would be best addressed in Executive Session. Mayor Willson noted that ten days advanced notice is required for demolition of some mall areas. Mr. LeFevere explained Gatlin does not have to give 10 days notice on the Macy's property but notice is required for the rest of the mall. Council consensus was reached to continue this discussion at the regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/11 -3- DRAFT 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 MAY 23, 2011 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. • Carlein Cloutier, 5731 Camden Avenue N., explained she had received a letter advising that her property was in violation of Code 12 -707 and 35 -530 because it has two storage sheds. She provided photos of her property for the Council's review and explained that when they purchased the property in 1998, the two sheds already existed. The first shed was constructed in 1976 and the second in 1995 after a building permit was issued. Ms. Cloutier stated they purchased the property because of the additional storage afforded by the two sheds and requested the City grandfather the two sheds or issue a variance. Shay Vue, 4950 Abbott Avenue, stated he received a ticket for his racing homer pigeons and asked that the Council reconsider and allow him to keep the pigeons. He explained the pigeons are well kept, clean, and vaccinated the same as a pet dog or cat. In response to the Council's questions, Mr. Vue provided additional information. He has had pigeons since he was 11 -12 years old; he had notified his neighbors of the pigeons and did not think they had complained; when racing, the pigeons are shipped to a different site and then return home; the pigeon coop is properly built, cleaned, and inspected by racing club officials; he has 40 -50 pigeons but only 20 compete and the rest are breeders and kept prisoners; the 20 -25 competing pigeons are exercised early each morning for 15 -30 minutes, fly as a flock, and make no noise; and he gives pigeons to neighborhood children because he thinks it helps them to stay out of trouble. 05/23/11 -1- DRAFT Ryan Sibinski, 8324 Hampshire Avenue N., stated his opposition to Brookdale. Mayor Willson • indicated that matter is an agenda items and. cannot be addressed during Open Forum. Mr. Sibinski asked to be allowed to speak to the broader issue during the agenda item. Mayor Willson stated the Council can take that request under advisement. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION As the invocation, Councilmember Lasman requested a moment of silence and personal reflection to honor the victims of the recent storm in the Twin Cities and other areas. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:01 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, to add Item 7a, Lona Schreiber, Metropolitan Council Member, District 2, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 9, 2011— Study Session 2. May 9, 2011 Regular Session 3. May 9, 2011— Work Session 05/23/11 -2- DRAFT 6b. LICENSES MECHANICAL • Absolute Mechanical, LLC 5203 West 73 Street, Edina CDM Heating & A/C 6040 340" Street, Stacy Carlson Plumbing, Inc. 19240 Isetta Street NE, East Bethel Centraire Heating & A/C, Inc. 7402 Washington Avenue S., Eden Prairie Joseph & Joseph Consulting, Ltd. 34 Imperial Drive E., West St. Paul M H Plumbing, Inc. 6725 277 Avenue NW, Isanti Modern Heating & Air 2318 First Street NE, Minneapolis Ray Welter Heating Company 4637 Chicago Avenue S., Minneapolis Wencl Services, Inc. 8148 Pillsbury Avenue S., Bloomington RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE II — two-year license) 3223 49 Avenue N. Hamid Safdari 4119 71S Avenue N. Nazir Moghul 6638 Camden Drive Gal Peremislov 5025 Drew Avenue N. Ryan Ferguson 5147 Drew Avenue N. Frank Jin 6114 Girard Avenue N. Sarah Vogt 5720 Logan Avenue N. Jeniffer Kuria RENEWAL (TYPE III — one-year license 3501 47 Avenue N. Passed w /Weather Deferral Richard Grommes 5240 Drew Avenue N. Passed w/Weather Deferral Bradley Schumacher 6613 Camden Drive Mark One Resources LLC 5160 Drew Avenue N. Passed w /Weather Deferral Chen Zhou RENEWAL (TYPE 1— three-year license) 120563 d Lane N. Michael Nwachukwu 3501 66 Avenue N. Michael Haase 1401 73 Avenue N. J. Thomas Equities LLC 6443 Emerson Avenue N. Deepak Nath 6407 Lee Avenue N. Joe Yurecko SIGNHANGER Advanced Design, Inc. 1600 29 Street, Cloquet • 05/23/11 -3- DRAFT 6c. APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR . LICENSE SUBMITTED BY CITY OF LAKES NORDIC SKI FOUNDATION, FOR AN EVENT TO BE HELD AT SURLY BREWING COMPANY, 4811 DUSHARME DRIVE, ON JUNE 18, 2011 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -75 APPROVING STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ON BEHALF OF ITS PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS /RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. LONA SCHREIBER, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBER, DISTRICT 2 Lona Schreiber, Metropolitan Council Member, District 2, introduced herself and the geographic area she represents, past political experience, and reported on the issues currently under consideration by the Metropolitan Council. The Council thanked Member Schreiber for the update and encouraged her support of the regional park system, transit, and livable community initiatives. • 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-76 PARTIALLY RELEASING HIGHWAY EASEMENT DOCUMENT NO. 720378, RELEASING AND TERMINATING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT GRANT DOCUMENT NO. 802984, RELEASING AND TERMINATING EASEMENT GRANT DOCUMENT NO. 964588, RELEASING AND TERMINATING EASEMENT GRANT DOCUMENT NO. 1032878, RELEASING AND TERMINATING EASEMENT GRANT DOCUMENT NO. 1504596 PARTIALLY RELEASING AND TERMINATING EASEMENT DOCUMENT NO. 4499430, RELEASING AND TERMINATING EASEMENT GRANT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT NO. 1838664, AND RELEASING AND TERMINATING EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF UTILITY AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DOCUMENT NO. 1876647, CONTAINED ON THE PARCELS WHICH LIE WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 100, BASS LAKE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10) AND XERXES AVENUE NORTH, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA City Engineer Steven Lillehaug introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution authorizing partial release of existing easements and release and termination of existing easements in connection with the final plat approval of Shingle Creek Crossing. He displayed a survey depicting the location of each easement and described the • purpose of the vacation. 05/23/11 -4- DRAFT Mr. Lillehaug acknowledged the written objections submitted by Excel and CenterPoint Energy . and indicated those objections have been addressed because the vacation of the Xerxes highway easement only relates to the snow fence portion and the other easement areas will be rededicated in some form to the City or private utility companies to assure current and future service to the properties. He recommended approval subject to the conditions identified in the proposed resolution. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Ryan Sibinski, 8324 Hampshire Avenue N., stated his objection to vacation of the easements, the demolition of Brookdale Mall which he believed was a perfectly good building, and construction of a new shopping center because it was unnecessary, too expensive, and a financial risk for the City. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -76 Partially Releasing Highway Easement Document No. 720378, Releasing and Terminating Sanitary Sewer Easement Grant Document No. 802984, Releasing and Terminating • Easement Grant Document No. 964588, Releasing and Terminating Easement Grant Document No. 1032878, Releasing and Terminating Easement Grant Document No. 1504596 Partially Releasing and Terminating Easement Document No. 4499430, Releasing and Terminating Easement Grant and Maintenance Agreement Document No. 1838664, and Releasing and Terminating Easement and Agreement For Maintenance and Inspection Of Utility And Storm Drainage Systems Document No. 1876647, contained on the Parcels which lie within the area bounded by Highway 100, Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) and Xerxes Avenue North, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -03 RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SIGNS; ADDING NEW BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE, SECTION 34- 140.2.p City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed transitory ordinance to give the City Manager authority to authorize signs on City- owned property during the Centennial Year to inform the community of Centennial events. If adopted, the ordinance would expire at the end of the Centennial Year. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to open the Public Hearing. • 05/23/11 -5- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. • No one appeared to address the City Council Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to approve second reading and adopt Transitory ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -03 Relating to the Regulation of Signs; Adding new Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 34- 140.2.p. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -009 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UNIT DEVELOPMENT/ SITE, AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF BROOKDALE CENTER TO BE KNOWN AS SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel provided an overview of Planning • Commission Application No. 2011 -09 and the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the application at its Aril 28 2011 meeting subject to conditions as detailed in the pp Pp p g J proposed resolution. The applicant is seeking a Planned Unit Develop ment ( PUD ) to allow the following changes to the original Brookdale redevelopment plan: 1. The demolition of approximately 760,000 sq. ft. of the mall including the former JC Penney, Mervyn's, Macy's, and Midas stores. 2. The renovation of approximately 123,242 sq. ft. of the mall located north of Sears with architectural changes to provide exterior identity and access while maintaining an indoor mall component. 3. The planned development of a 402,489 sq. ft. community shopping center /town center that includes a major anchor retailer. with groceries, three junior box retailers, six restaurant pad sites, and four multi -tenant retail /service buildings. 4. The day- lighting of Shingle Creek and enhancements to on -site storm water management, landscaping and lighting. Mr. Eitel presented the improvements to be made under the phasing plan, grading plan, storm sewer plan, water plan, sanitary sewer plan, lighting plan, landscape plan, and exterior elevations. • 05/23/11 -6- DRAFT Mr. Eitel answered questions of the City Council regarding the request for PUD /Site and Building Plan approval for the redevelopment of Brookdale Center to be known as Shingle Creek • Crossing. He indicated the sidewalk depth can accommodate vendor activity, if permitted by the City, and the design of the light poles would be presented to the EDA with subsequent plans. Councilmember Roche noted it is an asset that all sides of the development serve as the "front' and encouraged the developer to consider the aesthetic benefits of including a fountain in the pond. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -77 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -009 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -77 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -009 Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -008 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT /SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF THE BROOKDALE MALL PROPERTIES TO BE KNOWN AS SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING • Mr. Eitel provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -008 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its April 28, 2011, meeting subject to conditions as detailed in the proposed resolution. Mr. Eitel presented the Preliminary Plat/Subdivision approval of Shingle Creek Crossing involving the replat of the Brookdale Mall properties, excluding the Sears parcel, into 19 lots and one outlot to facilitate the phased improvements and development of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -78 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -008 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven, seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -78 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -008, Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company. Motion passed unanimously. NOTE: Item No. 9d was addressed by the City Council before Item No. 9c. • 05/23/11 -7- DRAFT 9d. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -010 SUBMITTED BY JEFF KAUERZ FOR AUTOZONE. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -010 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its May 12, 2011, meeting. Mr. Benetti answered questions of the City Council regarding the request for Preliminary Plat approval of Rainbows Garden City Second Addition to facilitate the legal separation of the former Hollywood Video and portions of the surrounding parking areas from the overall Max Sun Grocery retail center site. Once completed, Mr. Kauerz will be able to purchase Lot 1, Block 1, of Rainbows Second and complete the renovation of their new Auto Zone retail auto parts store. The Council asked about improving the aesthetics of the pond. Mr. Lillehaug stated a condition of approval requires the inspection of all ponds on the property as well as annual maintenance and inspection reporting to the City. With regard to maintenance of the building, Mr. Benetti stated the building will remain intact and both the interior and exterior will be rehabilitated. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -79 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -010 SUBMITTED BY JEFF KAUERZ FOR AUTOZONE Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION • NO. 2011 -79 Regardin g the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -010 Submitted by Jeff Kauerz for AutoZone. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -011 SUBMITTED BY JEFF KAUERZ FOR AUTOZONE. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM C -2 (COMMERCIAL) TO PUD /C -2 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/ COMMERCE) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD Mr. Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -011 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its May 12, 2011, meeting. He explained this request for rezoning provides the needed flexibility for the applicant to secure adjacent parking areas from the owners of the MaxSun market property, allow for access easement and driveway rights between property owners, and provide a zero lot line setback between parking facilities. He reported there are currently 33 parking spaces and an additional 18 spaces will be provided. Mr. Benetti advised that a building of this size requires 53 spaces so this arrangement is two short; however, the City can consider the parking arrangement and recognize the additional parking arrangement with BCK Enterprises, zero lot line setbacks for parking between the two parties, and shared access rights. These issues will be incorporated . into an agreement for final review by the City Attorney. 05/23/11 -8- DRAFT 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -80 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -011 SUBMITTED • BY JEFF KAUERZ FOR AUTOZONE Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -80 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -011 Submitted by Jeff Kauerz for AutoZone Motion passed unanimously. 9e. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 2011 -012 SUBMITTED BY MIKE LAMBERT FOR ALLIED BUILDING. REQUEST FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR A NEW 13,300 SQ. FT. COLD STORAGE BUILDING IN THE I -2 (GENERAL INDUSTRY) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 4810 LILAC DRIVE Mr. Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -012 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its May 12, 2011, meeting. He explained this request for site and building plan approval facilitates the construction of a 13,300 sq. ft. cold storage building for the storage of raw and finished building products typically provided for or sold to Allied customers. Mr. Benetti displayed a site plan to identify the location of the railroad spur easement. He stated the City Attorney had recommended that no building be permitted over any easement and • suggested directing the applicant to secure an easement release from the railroad. Mr. Benetti noted that if the property owner is not able to secure easement release, there is enough space to move the building farther into the site and avoid the easement. It was noted the easement matter was addressed in Condition 3. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -012 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official and Fire Chief with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. If required by the Building Official, the new building's automatic fire suppression systems shall meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 2. An existing signed survey should be submitted showing the proposed building and exact distances from lot lines. 3. No permanent structure shall be constructed over any existing easements. The status of the railroad spur easement may need to be determined later by the City Attorney. 4. The plan should show grading limits, pavement removals and restoration. 5. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. An erosion control plan must be • 05/23/11 -9- DRAFT submitted with the construction plans. All erosion control items must be installed before construction begins. 6. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to issuance of any final certificate of occupancy. The Council consensus was reached that should the building be relocated'to avoid the railroad spur, it would be brought before the Council as a site plan amendment. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -81 AUTHORIZING RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF WATER MAIN, SANITARY SEWER AND FIRE HYDRANT INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT NO. 962975; RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF WATER MAIN, SANITARY SEWER AND FIRE HYDRANT INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT NO. 1256759; RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF WATER MAIN, SANITARY SEWER AND FIRE HYDRANT INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT DOCUMENT NO. 1260654; RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF DECLARATION OF COVENANTS DOCUMENT NO. 1876646; AND RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT DOCUMENT NO. 4702186, AND • RELEASE OF RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT DOCUMENT NO. 4702185 CONTAINED ON THE PARCELS WHICH LIE WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY HIGHWAY 100, BASS LAKE ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 10), AND XERXES AVENUE NORTH, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Mr. Lillehaug introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution to authorize release and termination of existing agreements in connection with the final plat approval of Shingle Creek Crossing. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -81 Authorizing Release and Termination of Water Main, Sanitary Sewer and Fire Hydrant Inspection And Maintenance Agreement Document No. 962975; Release and Termination of Water Main, Sanitary Sewer and Fire Hydrant Inspection and Maintenance Agreement Document No. 1256759; Release and Termination of Water Main, Sanitary Sewer and Fire Hydrant Inspection and Maintenance Agreement Document No. 1260654; Release and Termination of Declaration of Covenants Document No. 1876646; and Release and Termination of Findings Of Fact Document No. 4702186, and Release of Receipt of Deposit Document No. 4702185 Contained on the Parcels which lie within the area bounded by Highway 100, Bass Lake Road (County Road 10), and Xerxes Avenue North, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/11 -10- DRAFT 10b. RESOLUTION NO. 2011-82 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING • Mr. Lillehaug introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution to approve the Final Plat for Shingle Creek Crossing that would combine and subdivide the following existing properties: City's EDA parcel in the southeast quadrant of Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10, Kohl's, Applebee's, Midas, and the Brookdale mall parcels (excluding Sears). This new plat would form 19 new, independent parcels with a common outlot. He recommended approval subject to the conditions as detailed in the proposed resolution. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2011-82 Approving Final Plat for Shingle Creek Crossing. Motion passed unanimously. 10c. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -83 AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS FOR SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING Mr. Lillehaug introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution to authorize acquisition of easements for Shingle Creek Crossing that are dedicated on the plat as well as individual easements. He recommended approval ,subject to the conditions detailed in the proposed resolution. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION • NO, 2011 -83 Authorizing Acquisition of Easements for Shingle Creek Crossing. Motion passed unanimously. 10d. RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -84 APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) Mr. Eitel introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution approving the Tax Increment Agreement for TIF District #5 and Development Agreement for Shingle Creek Crossing. He displayed a map to identify the properties and provided an explanation of the Articles contained in the agreement. Councilmember Ryan stated this project received extraordinary review beginning with the Planning Commission. He noted the Shingle Creek Crossing project acquisition costs are about $13 million and the current market value is $17 million. However, not too many years ago, when occupied by functioning retailers, Brookdale Mall had a market value of $46 million. Councilmember Ryan noted the conditions that made Brookdale Mall successful in the past have changed and the Council has the responsibility to its citizens to develop a plan for this valuable property that is successful and viable. • 05/23/11 -I 1- DRAFT As part of that analysis, Springsted evaluated the financials for the Shingle Creek Crossing . project and demonstrated that providing some financial assistance was required for the developer to have a successful project. That level of assistance is only what needs to be done to assure the project is feasible. The Council thanked staff and Gatlin Development for its work on this project. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2011-84 Approving Development Agreement (Shingle Creek Crossing). Motion passed unanimously. 10e. SEARS TOLLING AGREEMENT Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed Tolling Agreement under which the need to commence litigation is tolled, or suspended, to August 1, 2011. If executed, Sears could commence suit on August 30, 2011, or earlier, and be in the same legal position as if it had commenced the suit on May 23, 2011. Mr. Boganey referenced the recommendation of the City Attorney that this Agreement would facilitate the project moving forward. Mayor Willson noted the letter from Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP indicates the Tolling Agreement is only partially executed. • L. J. Rotman, Hinshaw and Culbertson LLC, representing .Sears, explained the Tolling Agreement is partially exec Development g p y uted because the City is yet to sign. Sears and Gatlin e opmen t have signed the Tolling Agreement. Mayor Willson asked about the agreement between Sears and Gatlin Development that Sears will waive its rights to a lawsuit in this matter. Mr. Rotman advised that agreement has been drafted and is still being discussed. Mayor Willson noted the Tolling Agreement indicates the City will hold Sears harmless until August and then it is okay to sue the City. Mr. Rotman clarified the Tolling Agreement is a common tool to solve problems and give them time to complete an agreement they are currently negotiating. He assured the Council that Sears is anxious to get it signed and he imagines that Mr. Gatlin feels the same. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere advised there is not a great risk to the City in executing this Tolling Agreement given the short duration it would be in effect. He stated it is not a usual agreement, but is a way to preserve the status quo and allow parties to continue negotiations without bringing a lawsuit to protect their rights. However, it does not preclude or prevent Sears from starting a lawsuit within the tolling period. Mayor Willson stated he wanted to assure the City was protected and asked what 'argument • would be made should a lawsuit be filed. Mr. LeFevere explained the legalities of a Tolling 05/23/11 -12- DRAFT Agreement and indicated it is more common if time has elapsed or the situation involved a statute of limitations. In this case, it is early in the process and no statutes of limitations apply. • Chad Williard, lawyer representing Gatlin Development, stated they are close to an agreement with Sears and have signed the Tolling Agreement since it does not change their position. Councilmember Lasman stated the Tolling Agreement would be an effective tool to enable the parties to come to an agreement, noting both Sears and Gatlin Development have signed it. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to accept Sears Tolling Agreement and authorize the City Attorney to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Councilmember Ryan stated he was encouraged to hear that the parties are approaching an agreement and would like to give Sears the benefit of the doubt and not impugn their motives. He noted the Tolling Agreement will give Sears and Gatlin Development the opportunity to come to agreement ement and in that spirit, g the will supp Agreement. execution of the A p � pp g Councilmember Roche stated that he is both uncomfortable and frustrated with Sears but would support the motion on the floor. He expressed concern that this situation has resulted in a "Wag the Dog" scenario and he wanted partners to support building the community, not hold it back. Councilmember Kleven concurred with the comments of Councilmembers Lasman and Ryan. Motion passed unanimously. • 10f. APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY AFOAKOM USA, INC., FOR AN EVENT TO BE HELD AT MIRACLE EMPOWERMENT CENTER, 5801 JOHN MARTIN DRIVE, ON JUNE 24 AND JUNE 25, 2011 Mr. Boganey introduced the item and discussed the purpose of the proposed application and permit for a temporary on -sale liquor license. He recommended approval contingent upon resolution of parking, safety, and security issues to satisfy the requirements of the Police Department. Councilmember Lasman noted the close time is 2 a.m. and asked if the liquor license fee is higher. Mr. Boganey stated the ordinance may not allow an increased fee for a later closing time but if a higher fee can be charged, it will be collected. Councilmember Roche noted the last time there was an event at this location, it involved a police call. Mr. Boganey noted this is a different applicant and a condition of approval will assure adequate security. • 05/23/11 -13- DRAFT Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve application and . permit for Temporary On -Sale Liquor License submitted by AFOAKOM USA, Inc., for an event to be held at Miracle Empowerment Center, 5801 John Martin Drive, on June 24 and June 25, 2011, contingent upon resolution of parking, safety, and security issues to satisfy the requirements of the Police Department. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following: • May 11, 2011, ribbon cutting ceremony for the newly renovated Panera Bread, Northwest Hennepin Services Council annual, event honoring community partners, and then delivered welcome bags to new residents • May 12, 2011, Association for Responsible Management meeting and Planning Commission meeting • May 17, 2011, Orchard Lane Park neighborhood area meeting • May 20, 2011 golf tournament and fundraiser at Centerbrook Golf Course for the Crime Prevention Program Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following: • May 12, 2011, meeting on Domestic Violence convened by the Chiefs of Police of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park • • May 17, 2011, Orchard Lane Park neighborhood area meeting Councilmember Roche reported that some Brooklyn Center baseball games have been postponed due to the rain and on his coaching of the Brooklyn Center Angels. Councilmember Roche stated it was great to see so many participants enjoying the Brooklyn Center Centennial 5k race /walk and announced the June 11, 2011, Victory Memorial Drive rededication ceremony, noting it commemorates the 568 soldiers and nurses from Hennepin County who died in World War L Councilmember Lasman reported on her attendance at the following: • May 11, 2011, Crime Prevention Program where a report was given by the Police Chief on reduced crime rates and focus on domestic abuse • May 17, 2011, Orchard Lane Park neighborhood meeting • May 18, 2011, North Metro Mayor's meeting at Earle Brown Heritage Center • May 20, 2011, Brooklyn Center Golf Tournament where she volunteered and thanked all sponsors and participants • May 21, 2011, Shingle Creek Restoration Project and thanked all who volunteered Councilmember Lasman announced that on July 16, 2011, Centerbrook Golf Course is offering Centennial Saturdays with reduced golf and food rates. In addition, on Father's Day dads can golf for free with a regular priced round. . Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following: 05/23/11 -14- DRAFT • May 17, 2011, Orchard Lane Park neighborhood meeting and indicated he received great comments on staff's presentation. • 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:34 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • I 05/23/11 -15- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC • DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 23, 2011 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 9:49 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers /Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager /Director of Building & Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY GARDENS PROGRAM City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, reviewed the history, and requested Council direction on the motion on the table regarding a Community Gardens Program. It was noted the Housing Commission and Recreation Commission are working together to develop a Community Gardens Program and fee schedule but that work will not be completed in 2011. The City Council/EDA asked staff to provide the information it considered to those Commissions and suggested the Environmental Commission, if organized, also consider this matter. The City Council/EDA referenced a March 30, 2011, Sun Newspaper article recapping the work of volunteer Diane Sannes in receiving a $1,500 Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) grant from Hennepin County on behalf of the Odyssey -Vinai garden. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to place Community Gardens on the June 13, 2011, Council agenda so it can be removed from the table and referred to advisory commissions for additional study and recommendation. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:56 p.m. . Motion passed unanimously, 05/23/11 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION JUNE 6, 2011 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission and the session was called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Tim Roche was absent and excused. Also present: City Manager Curt Boganey, Fiscal and Support Services Director Dan Jordet, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Others present were Financial. Commissioners Steve Landis. Financial Commissioner Rex Newman arrived at 6:34 p.m., Dan Schueller arrived at 6:40 p.m., and Koffi Agbossou arrived at 6:45 p.m. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Ryan to approve this evening's agenda. Motion passed unanimously. AUDITOR REPORT AND MANAGEMENT LETTER Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosovich, & Company, P.A. had been selected for the City's Auditing Firm and Jim Eicthen was introduced to review the City's Management Report and Special Purpose Audit Reports. Mr. Eichten outlined the auditor's role and informed there were no findings involving the City's internal control over financial reporting. This is exceptional and tends to not always be the result with a City that has Federal Awards. Staff should be commended for their work on the outcome of this clean opinion. Mr. Eichten informed that the two internal control findings from last year, Preparation of Adjusting Journal Entry and Lack of Management Approval for Payroll, have been eliminated. Mr. Eichten discussed and informed that pages four through nineteen of the Management Report were financial results and pointed out benchmarks for Legislation, Property Taxes, Taxable Market Values, Local Tax Capacity, Governmental Funds Revenue per Capita, General Fund Financial Position, General Fund Revenues, General Fund Revenue by Source, General Fund Expenditures, • General Fund Expenditures by Function, Utility Funds, Enterprise Funds, Statement of Net Assets, and the change in Net Assests. 06/06/11 -1- DRAFT Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet informed the information provided with the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the year ended December 31, 2010, was • available for discussion; however, he would like to discuss the following this evening. First, he wished to commend staff for the clean opinion, clearance of last year's findings, and the lack of findings for 2010. Those to be recognized and credited are Sue Fogal, Nancy Cary, and Clara Hilger, Steve Lillehaug, Tom Agnes, Tom Bublitz, and Bruce Ballanger. There was discussion of the Golf Course Fund and what can be done structurally. This will be a topic discussed by staff to look at recommendations on how to proceed with this fund. The MSA Fund has been partially repaid by the State of Minnesota and the payment is not seen in the materials previously provided in the CAFR. There was discussion regarding pages 61 -63 in the CAFR and it was noted that the tax increment bonds are healthy and the utility revenue bonds did not change, making 2011 in good shape. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adjourn the Work Session at 7:32 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • • 06/06/11 -2 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EXECUTIVE SESSION JUNE 6, 2011 CITY HALL - SHINGLE CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Executive Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7 :37 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Tim Roche was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Police Chief Kevin Benner, Attorney Jason Hiveley, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. The City Council, Attorney, and staff discussed pending litigation regarding Laura Warner v. Brooklyn Center Police Officer Charles Valleau. ADJOURNMENT The Brooklyn Center City Council Executive Session adjourned at 8:36 p.m. 06/06/11 -1- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b 1 • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: June 6, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clem SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses at its June 13, 2011, meeting. Background: The following businesses /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees.. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. GARBAGE HAULER Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 6601 McKinley Street NW, Ramsey Walz Brothers Sanitation P.O.-Box 627 • FIREWORKS — PERMANENT Target 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway LIQUOR — CLASS D ON -SALE INTOXICATING AND SUNDAY Brooklyn Center Investment Group, Inc.' dba Mr BBQ and the Voodoo Lounge 2101 Freeway Boulevard ' — Conditions: submittal of copy of food license and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy LIQUOR — 2 A.M. CLOSING Brooklyn Center Investment Group, Inc.' dba Mr BBQ and the Voodoo Lounge 2101 Freeway Boulevard ' - Conditions: submittal of copy of food license and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy MECHANICAL 7 Metro Heating and A/C 609 150 Avenue NE, Ham Lake Airtech Thermex LLC 4918 W 35 Street, St Louis Park Bob Kissner P & H 13421 Dunkirk Street, Ham Lake Heating & Cooling Design Inc. 10830 Able Street NE, Blaine In -A -Vent 334 Dean Avenue E, Champlin Knott Mechanical, Inc. 3051 220 Street E, Prior Lake Larson Plumbing 3095 162 Lane NW, Andover Neil Heating and A/C P.O. Box 29292, Minneapolis Northwoods Plumbing 31127 101 Street, Princeton • Sharp Heating & A/C 7221 University Avenue NE, Fridley UHL Company, Inc. 9065 Zachary Lane N, Maple Grove Mission: Ensuring an attractive, cleats, safe community that enhances the quality of life, and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM RENTAL • See attached report. Rental License Category Criteria Policy — Adopted by City Council 03 -08 -10 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only Type 1— 3 Year 1 -2 units 0 -1 Type II — 2 Year 1 -2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 A .=. Gralr Ik O'75hluolrnor� than, l 5 ,.���.�. . Type III — 1 Year 1 -2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 t� dater tq more than 3. Type IV — 6Months 1 -2 units Greater than 8 License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes • (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1 -2 0 -1 "s Impact �� �.. i 5 or more units 0 -0.35 Decrease 1 1 -2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category _ 5 y Per khan 05 ,,hut not`of, than' 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1 -2 Greater than 3 Categories 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Rental Licenses for Council Approval on June 13, 2011 PropertyFinal DwellingRenewalLicensePoliceUnpaidUnpaid CodeLicense Property AddressTypeor InitialOwnerViolationsTypeCFS *Type **UtilitiesTaxes 3312 62nd Ave NSingle FamilyInitial1IIN/AIIOKOK Pang Lee 3313 65th Ave NSingle FamilyInitial0IIN/AIIOKOK Marilyn Hierl 2840 67th Ln NSingle FamilyInitial0IIN/AIIOKOK Steven Tonna 1500 72nd Ave NSingle FamilyInitial1IIN/AIIOKOK Thomas Le 5622 Emerson Ave NSingle FamilyInitial1IIN/AIIOKOK Sally Fischer 5724 Girard Ave NSingle FamilyInitial2IIN/AIIOKOK Joshua Harrington 5712 Northport DrSingle FamilyInitial2IIN/AIIOKOK Cindy Scherbing 3012 Thurber RdSingle FamilyInitial3IIN/AIIOKOK Plai Malle 1 Bldgs11 5000 France Ave N 4 Units.25/Unit.25/Unit RenewalDean GannonIIOKOK 1 Bldgs 4210 Lakebreeze Ave 00 4 Units RenewalJames & Bobbie SimonsIIOKOK 3815 52nd Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal0I2IIOKOK Philip Stevenson 3912 61st Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal0I0IOKOK Nazneen Khatoon 4407 66th Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal1I0IOKOK Sarah Bateman 4806 69th Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal1I0IOKOK Lin Shuang LLC 1300 72nd Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal0I0IOKOK Marinela & Scott Selseth 401 Bellvue LnSingle FamilyRenewal0I0IOKOK Dragon Property Mgmt 501 Bellvue LnSingle FamilyRenewal0I0IOKOK Dragon Property Mgmt 6107 Bryant Ave N Single FamilyRenewal2II0IIOKOK Passed w/Weather Deferral Daniel Yesnes 6611 Camden DrSingle FamilyRenewal0I0IOKOK Jenn-Yuan Chen 5857 Colfax Ave N Single FamilyRenewal1I0IOKOK Passed w/Weather Deferral Doug Wahl 6718 Colfax Ave N Single FamilyRenewal8III0IIIOKOK Passed w/Weather Deferral Ken Fountain 5200 Drew Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal2II0IIOKOK Morris Matthews 6806 Drew Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal2II1IIOKOK Thomas Davidson 7025 Drew Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalIII0IIIOKOK Ryan Yardley6 5001 Ewing Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal0I 0IOKOK Bartholomew Dabrowski 7018 France Ave NSingle FamilyRenewal1I0IOKOK Gary Brummer 5636 Fremont Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Samer Alamy0 5640 Fremont Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Doug Wahl0 5443 Irving Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Doug Wahl1 Rental Licenses for Council Approval on June 13, 2011 PropertyFinal DwellingRenewalLicensePoliceUnpaidUnpaid CodeLicense Property AddressTypeor InitialOwnerViolationsTypeCFS *Type **UtilitiesTaxes 5819 Knox Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Gary Brummer1 5312 Newton Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalII0IIOKOK Pavel Sakurets3 7224 Noble Ave NSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Quoc Ai Nguyen1 5319 Northport DrSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Daniel Mazzuco0 2812 O'Henry RdSingle FamilyRenewalI0IOKOK Mains'l Properties0 4718 Twin Lake AveSingle FamilyRenewalIII Richard & Elizabeth Becht70IIIOKOK * CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** Final License Type Type I = 3 yearType II = 2 yearType III = 1 year City Council Agenda Item No. 6c • 1 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Business and Development Director ' SUBJECT: Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2011 -77 and Approving the Corrected Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -009 Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik (For Gatlin Development Company) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of the Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2011 77 and Approving the Corrected Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -009 Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik (For Gatlin Development Company). Background: On May 23, 2011, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation on Planning Application No.2011 -09. a request b Gatlin Development Company for approval of q Y p the Shingle Crossing PUD and Site Building Plans for the Walmart Store and Phase I Improvements. . The Planning Commission's resolution inadvertently included Condition No. lrequiring site plan review and approval of the Planned Unit Development approval as a condition of the Walmart Site and Building Plan approval. On May 26, 2011, the Planning Commission moved to correct this error and amended the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -07 by deleting the following condition from the recommendation on the Walmart Site and Building Plans: 1. Final site plan review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with Section 35 -230 Plan Approval of the Zoning Ordinance to include but not necessarily limited to parking, building placement, access, internal circulation, pedestrian walkways, site lighting, landscaping, utility connections, architectural treatment, and building signage. The Commission's corrected recommendation has been made to the attached City Council Resolution. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 2. We will aggressively proceed with implementation of City's redevelopment plans Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life anti preserves the public trust Councilmember introduced the following resolution and • moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -77 AND APPROVING THE CORRECTED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-009 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK (FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -009 submitted by Loren Van Der Slik (For Gatlin Development Company) proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the following changes to the Brookdale redevelopment plan: 1. The demolition of approximately 750,000 sq. ft. of the mall including the former JC Penney's, Mervyn's, Macy's and Midas stores. 2. The renovation of approximately 123,242 sq. ft. of the mall located north of Sears with architectural changes to provide exterior identity and access while maintaining an indoor mall component. 3. The planned development of a 402,489 sq. ft. community shopping center /town center that includes a major anchor retailer with groceries, three junior box retailers, six restaurant pad sites, and four multi -tenant retail/service buildings. 4. The day - lighting of Shingle Creek and enhancements to on -site storm water . management, landscaping and lighting. WHEREAS, Resolution No. 99 -37, established a PUD /C -2 zoning classification for the Brookdale properties on March 8, 1999 and included the following modifications to the development standards for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Planned Unit Development: a) Allowed a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations with a 3 to 3 '/2 ft. decorative masonry wall. b) Allowed 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft: of gross leasable area. c) Allowed 60 ft. wide parking dimensions for standard 90 degrees parking and aisle width. d) Allowed two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along Hwy 100. e) Allowed an increase of 15 percent to 20 percent restaurant use without requiring additional parking; and, WHEREAS, Exhibit A, attached to this resolution identifies the commercial uses and intensity of development included in the 1999 PUD application and references the 2004 PUD amendment for a Dairy Queen Chill & Grill, and the 2007 PUD amendment involving the demolition of the Mervyn's site and construction of a 184,000 sq. ft. Super Walmart; and 1 • • WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the following PUD plans and exhibits, which provide the framework for this Town Center redevelopment to be known as Shingle Creek Crossing: Master Plan, Site Plan, Phasing Plan, Existing Grading Exhibit, Proposed Grading Plan, Storm Sewer Plan, Water Utility Plan, Sanitary Sewer Plan, Lighting (Photometric) Plan, Landscaping Plan, Circulation Exhibit, Major Access Routes, Exterior Building Elevations, Shingle Creek Exhibits for Day - Lighting / Water Features / Bridge Elevation, rendering of the development, Roadway Cross Sections, Signage Program, and Daylighting Shingle Creek Framework Plan (excerpts); and WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Unit Development has been reviewed and found to meet the following PUD criteria for approval: 1. The plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the PUD ordinance; 2. The plan is consistent of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The plan will positively influence /impact the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The plans and exhibits demonstrates the adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 28, 2011, whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development Amendment request in light of all testimony received and the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 and the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2011 -009 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -07 on April 28, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planned Unit Development rezoning and in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this rezoning contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and complies with the goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendations. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 2 Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2011 -009 referencing the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned • Unit Development proposal and application submitted by Loren Van Der Slik (for Gatlin Development Company), be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development proposal is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance and will allow for the redevelopment of a significant portion of the Brookdale Regional Mall site which is considered to be vital to the stabilization of other commercial properties within the community. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 4. The Planned Unit Development appears to be a good utilization of the property under consideration and the Shingle Creek Crossing redevelopment and is considered to be an asset to the community. 5. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit • Development proposal will conform with city ordinance standards for the most part with the exception of the following allowed variations from the zoning ordinance which are considered reasonable standards to apply to this proposal: A. Allow 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 1 /2 ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects along Xerxes Avenue. B. Allows a reduction in the 15 foot parking setback and 35 foot building setback along Bass Lake Road to offset the dedication of additional right of way for the trail improvements to replace the current trail easements. C. Allow 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable retail area and 10 per 1,000 sq. ft.. of restaurant area rather than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area and one per two seats and employee on a major shift for restaurants. D. Allow the 60 ft. wide parking dimension standard for 90 degree parking rather than the 63 ft. and a 52.5 ft wide parking dimension for 60 degree parking rather than the 57 ft. 3 E. Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 and two Town Center identification signs (one additional) along Bass Lake Road and one Town Center identification sign on Xerxes Avenue. F. Allow an increase from 15 percent to 20 percent of the allowable restaurant use without requiring additional parking at Brookdale based on the uniqueness of Brookdale, the mix of uses and dynamics of multiple stops per person at the Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that approval of the proposed Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development referenced under Application No. 2011 -009 be approved and subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Final site plan review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council in accordance with Section 35 -230 Plan Approval of the Zoning Ordinance to include but not necessarily limited to parking, building placement, access, internal circulation, pedestrian walkways, site lighting, landscaping, utility connections, architectural treatment, and building signage. 2. Final review and approval of architectural review guidelines and standards of the Planned Unit Development Plans and Exhibits. The approvals of • these architectural guidelines shall include building materials identified as either Class I and Class II materials, as noted in the April 28, 2011 Planning Information Report, and may include an architectural panel acceptable to both City Staff and the Developer. 3. Any and all new building(s) illustrated on the PUD conceptual plans shall be subject to review and approval under separate Site and Building Plan application consideration, except for the Walmart facility which is subject to separate approvals and conditions under Application No. 2011 -009 and referenced herein. 4. Since specific users with the PUD other than Walmart, Applebees and Kohl's have not yet been identified, it can be anticipated that some restaurant and retail building pads will be different from the submitted PUD conceptual plans. Modifications to the conceptual PUD plan shall be allowed as long as 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable retail area and 10 per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area is provided. Drive- thru's that are currently not identified on the PUD conceptual plans shall require a PUD Amendment. 5. The applicants shall revise the walkways leading into this site from 5 -ft. widths to 6 -foot walkways. • 4 6. The applicant shall install additional bollard/pedestal style lights along the • walkway edges, or wall mount, downcast style lighting along the front edges of those buildings that abut internal sidewalks. 7. A walkway from the Xerxes Ave. entry be installed along the northerly portion of this east/west access roadway to complete the connection over to the main north/south roadway. 8. The walkway to be installed in front of Buildings P and Q shall be included in the Phase I plans. 9. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall match the building materials of the new buildings and appropriately screened from view. All facilities shall be subject to final City review and approvals as part of any future Site/Building Plan consideration. 10. Review and approval of storm water management and drainage conceptual improvements by Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with final approval before the issuance of demolition and building permits. 11. eview and approval of the proposed intersection improvements at Shingle Creek Parkway and Bass Lake Road by Hennepin County. 12. Review and approval of the necessary grading plans, water and sanitary • sewer utility plans, storm water management and erosion control plans, and intersection designs by the City Engineer as a condition to the issuance of permits for construction, grading, or demolition. 13. The applicant shall show and dedicate easements for all existing and proposed trails and streetscape improvements illustrated on the PUD Plans. Easements shall be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary Plan (Plat) and Final Plat. i 14. Updated plans and amendments will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary Plan. 15. A building permit shall not be issued for the building to be constructed on Lot 2, Block 1, identified as Building N, until either: a. Applicant and Sears execute and record an agreement creating a cross- access easement over and across Lot 2, Block 1 and the Sears Property to accommodate commercial truck loading areas; or b. The Applicant submits an application for and the City approves an amendment to the site plan reconfiguring said Building N in the manner that eliminates the need for a cross - access easement with Sears. • 5 16. The final lacement and installation of an sign shall be subject to final p Y City review and approvals consistent with the approved Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Sign Program (plans). 17. Any updates or major (significant) changes to the proposed Shingle Creek Daylighting Plan and/or its related water features and amenities shall be subject to separate consideration and final City review and approvals in conjunction with a PUD Amendment and Preliminary/Final Plat application. 18. The following uses are not allowed either as permitted uses or special uses on the Subject Property: (a) Hospitals, medical and dental laboratories, and nursing care homes listed in Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35- 322.1.£ (b) Contractor /construction uses listed in Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35- 322.1.g. (c) Educational uses listed in Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35- 322.1.h. (d) Places for religious assemblies such as chapels, churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues. (e) Funeral and crematory services. (f) Drop -in child care centers listed in Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35- 322.1.k. (g) Gasoline service stations. (h) The sale of motor vehicles. (i) The out -of -door display on or sale of marine craft. 0) Transient lodging. (k) Animal hospitals. (1) Clubrooms and lodges. (m) School bus garage facilities. (n) Automobile and truck rental and leasing (o) Group day care facilities 19. The applicant shall enter into a PUD development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Said agreement shall acknowledge the various modifications to City ordinances, the PUD requirements for site plan review, the framework of the PUD (Development Plans and Exhibits), cross parking and access agreements, responsibilities for private infrastructure and roadways and conditions of approval to . assure compliance with the approved development plans. AND • 6 WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -009 submitted by • Loren Van Der Slik (for Gatlin Development Company) also proposes a Site and Building Plan approval allowing the construction of a new 181,943 sq. ft. Walmart retail store with outdoor parking facilities, garden center, drive -thru pharmacy and related site improvements, along with the Phase I improvements as indicated in the Shingle Creek Crossing Conceptual Development Plans; and WHEREAS, the applicant has provided the Site and Building Plans for the new 181,943 sq. ft. Walmart retail store with outdoor parking facilities, garden center, drive -thru pharmacy and related site improvements, which include the following: Cover Sheet; Preliminary Plat; Erosion Control Plans; Demolition Plans; Utility Sequence Plans; Site Plans and Site Details; Grading and Drainage Plans and Details; Trail Plan and Profiles; Utility Plans; Lift Station Details; Public Utility Plans and Profiles; Photometric Plans; Typical Sections; Landscape Plans and Details; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans for the proposed Walmart facility and property are consistent with the General Development Plans of the proposed Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development noted herein. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2011 -009 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -07 on April 28, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed Site and Building Plan and • Phase I improvements as indicated in the Shingle Creek Crossing Conceptual Development Plans and as referenced under Application No. 2011 -009, and in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this Site and Building Plan contained in Section 35 -230 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and that said Site and Building Plan complies with the general goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, that Application No. 2011 -009 referencing the proposed Site and Building Plan and Phase I improvements. as indicated in the Shingle Creek Crossing Conceptual Development Plans and as referenced under Application No. 2011 -009 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Landscape islands or similar breaks in the mid- points or various points throughout the Walmart dedicated parking lot shall be installed. 2. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed "recycling area" to the rear of the Walmart facility as part of the final site plan approvals. 3. The proposed dual drive -thru window layout with criss -cross access for the Walmart store shall be further reviewed to ensure adequate, safe 7 • operation. This drive -thru layout will be subject to final City review and -approvals as a condition of the site plan approval. Date Mayor ATTEST City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -06 . Exhibit A On March 8, 1999, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 99 -37 which approved the Planned Unit Development/Rezoning application to change the zoning of the Brookdale Mall properties from C -2 (Commerce) District to PUD /C -2. The 1999 PUD development plans provided for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation i of Brookdale Center and included the following components: the reconfiguration of the west end of the mall to include an 89,650 sq. ft. second floor to include a 20 screen, 4,252 seat movie theater; . a 13, 200 sq. ft. addition to the north entrance to the mall for two restaurant sites and a new food court; 13,000 sq. ft. addition for general retail use and revised entry way along the southerly side of the complex; a 4,650 sq. ft. freestanding Applebee's restaurant; and conceptual approval for three other buildings shown on the plan as buildings No. 3 (west of the Northway entrance onto Bass Lake Road) and 4 and 5 ( adjacent to the eastern entrance service road), subject to review and approval in the form of a PUD amendment by the Planning Commission and City Council; and the following were of the 999 PUD adjustments development standards w d ustments to the C -2 de g J P p • PUD Development Plan: - Allowed a 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. green strip at certain locations with a 3 to 3 '/2 ft. decorative masonry wall. - Allowed 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. - Allowed 60 ft. wide parking dimensions for standard 90 degrees parking and aisle width. - Allowed two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along Hwy 100. - Allowed an increase of 15 percent to 20 percent restaurant use without requiring additional parking. On July 26, 2004 the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation on a PUD amendment for a 4,195 sq. ft. Dairy Queen Grill and Chill restaurant- on the site referenced as Building 3 (west of the Northway entrance onto Bass Lake Road.) That proposed development did not proceed and site remained an overflow parking area. On August 27, 2007, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 2007- 112, which approved an amendment to the PUD involving the demolition of the former Mervyn's (Donaldson's) Department Store to facilitate the construction of an 184,600 sq. ft. Walmart Super Center. The proposal involved the creation of a 14.27 acre lot and involved the closure of the Northway intersection (Mall entrance). 9 • • Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -06 Exhibit A On August 27, 2007, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and adopted Resolution No. 2007- 112, which approved an amendment to the PUD involving the demolition of the former Mervyn's (Donaldson's) Department Store to facilitate the construction of an 184,600 sq. ft. Walmart Super Center. The proposal involved the creation of a 14.27 acre lot and involved the closure of the Northway intersection (Mall entrance). The proposed development was legally challenged by Sears under the terms and conditions of the Master Operating Agreement for the Brookdale Center and subsequently the application was withdrawn. In 2008 -09, the Brookdale Mall properties were turned back to the lender, formal foreclosure proceedings occurred, the General Operations Agreement for the Mall expired, and the new property owner, Capmark Financial, retained a commercial real estate company to market the property. In 2010, Gatlin Development Company acquired the Macy's Site (former Dayton's lot) and entered into agreements with Capmark Financial to acquire the balance of the Mall, excluding the Sear's and Midas lots. In March 2011, Gatlin Development acquired the rights to the Midas parcel property, thereby securing its right to add said parcel into the PUD Amendment application. • 10 City Council Agenda Item No. 6d COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 7, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tom Bublitz EDA/HRA S p ecialis THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Action Plan and Authorizing Submittal of Plan to Metropolitan Council Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of the Resolution Approving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Action Plan and Authorizing Submittal of Plan to Metropolitan Council. Background: The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act was passed by the 1995 Legislature and is a comprehensive piece of legislation addressing affordable housing in the seven county metropolitan area. The primary goal of the act was to provide a mechanism whereby each • community in the seven county metropolitan area addresses the issue of affordable housing. The mechanism is a negotiated agreement with the Metropolitan Council on affordable housing goals for each community. A summary of key items relative to the Act and the City of Brooklyn Center's continued participation in the local housing incentives account programs follows: • The Brooklyn Center City Council elected to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act by passing a resolution to that effect on November 13, 1995, which covered the period from 1996 through 2010. On August 23, 2010, the City Council approved Resolution 2010 -120 (copy attached) which authorized continued participation in the Livable Communities Act through the year 2020. The resolution also approved affordable and life cycle housing goals established by the Metropolitan Council as part of the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan update. • As part of the city's continued participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) under the Livable Communities Act, the City is required to submit, to the Metropolitan Council, a Housing Action Plan (HAP) which outlines how the City intends to meet its Livable Communities Act Affordable and Life Cycle goals. The strategies and proposed actions in the HAP are already contained in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. , • One of the benefits for continued participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account under the Livable Communities Act is that the City is eligible to apply for and receive certain grants offered by the Metropolitan Council. To remain eligible for Metropolitan Council Grant programs, the City must participate in the Livable Communities Act and Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe conununity that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM submit the Housing Action Plan. One of the Met Council programs the City has used in • the past is the Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) grant program which provides funding for investigation and clean up of contaminated properties. Under this program, the City has received over $709,000 in Metropolitan Council TBRA grant funds for the redevelopment of the former Joslyn site and to date, $50,000 in Metropolitan Council TBRA funds for contamination investigation related to the redevelopment of the former Howe Chemical site. It is City, the anticipated its Economic Development p Y� throu � Authority will apply for additional funds through the TBRA grant program for the redevelopment of the HOWE site. Submission of Housing Action Plan to Metropolitan Council The Metropolitan Council has prepared guidelines for information to be included in Housing Action Plans but, as the Metropolitan Council's Housing Action Plan checklist states "there is no single correct format or minimum requirement for how the community attempts to address this information in its Action Plan. Understanding its current and future housing needs, and who can and should benefit from its housing efforts is a practical and prudent step and should be the basis for the housing implementation activities of any community ". The Housing Action Plan submitted for Council review is essentially a restatement of the various elements of the housing plan included in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Additionally, as the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan points out "cities are not required to construct or even finance construction of the allocated affordable housing units. Rather, land to accommodate multi - famil housing of at least as man • � Y g Y units as allocated needs to be properly y designated. Zonin g or plan designation in multi - famil housing place to allow construction of g meeting or exceeding the number of allocated units where only a building permit may be required ". If the Council accepts and approves the Housing Action Plan, a resolution to that effect is included with this memorandum for consideration by the City Council at their June 13, 2011 meeting. The deadline for submission of the Housing Action Plan to the Metropolitan Council is June 30, 2011. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 3. We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods • I Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe conununity that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -120 RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT CALENDAR YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes sections 473.25 to 473.255) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes section 473.121; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account, the Local Housing Incentive Account and the Inclusionary Housing Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan-area municipalities; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan-area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites • cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development Authority Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes section 473.254; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act requires the Metropolitan Council to negotiate with each municipality to establish affordable and life -cycle housing goals for that municipality that are consistent with and promote the policies of the Metropolitan Council as provided in the adopted Metropolitan Development Guide; and WHEREAS, previously negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for municipalities participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program expire in 2010; and WHEREAS, a metropolitan -area municipality can participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under Minnesota Statutes section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program; (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality successfully negotiate new affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the municipality; (c) the Metropolitan Council adopts by resolution the new negotiated affordable and life -cycle housing goals for the municipality; and (d) the municipality establishes it has spent or will spend or distribute to the Local Housing Incentives Account the required Affordable and Life -Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) for each year the municipality participates in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program. • RESOLUTION NO. 2010:-120 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City of Brooklyn Center: L Elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act for calendar year 2011 through 2020. 2. Agrees to the following affordable.and life -cycle housing goals for calendar years 2011 through 2020: Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goals Range 106 units -163 units 160 units — 400 units 3. Will prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council a plan identifying the actions it plans to take to meet its established housing goals. t August 23, 2010 Date Mayor • I ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mark Yelich and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Tim Willson, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich; and the following voted agaiiist the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Metropolitan Livable Communities Act 2011. -2020 Housin g Action.Plan For the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 7 Prepared by. • City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Cree =Pkwy n a a a BrooklynxCenter, MN 55 „ 430 763 569 3,300 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • HOUSING ACTION PLAN 2011 -2020 INTRODUCTION In 1995, Minnesota Legislature passed the Livable Communities Act (LCA). The LCA created a voluntary incentive based approach to address the Metropolitan Area affordable and life cycle housing issues and to provide funding for municipalities with regard to costs related to development occurring in their cities. It established the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, including three on -going accounts from which eligible communities could apply for funding: . 1. The Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) helped cities clean up contaminated urban land and buildings for redevelopment. 2. The Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds grants and loans for development and redevelopment projects that achieve connected development patterns that link housing, jobs and services and maximizes the development potential of existing or planned infrastructure and regional facilities. 3. The Local Housing Incentive Account (LHIA) helps preserve and expand life cycle and affordable rental and ownership housing in the Metropolitan Area. • CITY PARTICIPATION IN LCA/ LHIA The City of Brooklyn Center participated in the Metropolitan Council's LHIA program from 1995 to 2010. Resolution 2010 -120 (Resolution Electing to Continue Participating in the Local , Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Calendar Years 2011 - 2020), provides for the City's continued participation in Metropolitan - Council program's authorized by the LCA. In addition to the adoption of Resolution 2010 -120, the City's continued participation in LCA is dependent on the submission of a Housing Action Plan to the Metropolitan Council outlining the steps the City will take to help meet its LCA housing goals. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LCA GOALS The Metropolitan Council expects that, in the preparation of a Housing Action Plan (HAP), most of the HAP is already contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Other action elements can certainly be included but the foundation for the HAP is the Comprehensive Plan. HAP action steps included in the HAP that are addressed in the Comprehensive Plan will be noted with a reference to the specific element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 1 . GOALS AND OBJECTIVES In addition to the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, housing and the City's residential neighborhoods are one of the six strategic goals of the City as expressed in the City of Brooklyn Center's "Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2010 ". The specific strategic goal is stated as "we will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods ". The introduction to the City's Comprehensive Plan includes a "Summary of Goals" which addresses the overall goals of the City as memorialized in its Comprehensive Plan. It is important to note that the emphasis of the "Summary of Goals" is housing and neighborhoods. The "Summary of Goals" from the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, found on page ii of the Comp Plan, is restated here as follows: "The goals for the plan have been developed based on the issues identified in the community analysis and visioning meetings, discussions with staff and background reports, including the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth Management Strategy and other studies. More detailed and specific goals are included in the individual chapters of the Plan. 1. Brooklyn Center will become known for its sense of community and will capitalize on its physical attributes including its first -ring suburban location, good highway and bus access, sound and diversified housing stock, vibrant mixed -use city centre, attractive Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, and interconnected park and open space • system. 2. Brooklyn Center will gain an increased sense of place by: • Retrofitting the public elements of its neighborhoods. • Focusing and linking these neighborhoods toward an intensified mixed -use, retail office- residential -city center. • Making major street corridors and other public spaces highly attractive, and • Celebrating diversity. 3. Brooklyn Center will develop a positive public image and strong community esteem through programs to correct housing vacancy and deterioration and crime in certain areas and by ensuring that the City's positive attributes and successes are publicized. 4. Brooklyn Center will accomplish these and other aims through cooperative leadership and sound management ". The following housing goals and objectives are also from the Housing Plan contained in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan (pp. 4 -14 and 4 -15) and are intended to build upon the goals stated in Paragraphs 1 through 4 above. 1. "Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. 2 • Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles • contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans (such as the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study, the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study, the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study and the Opportunity Site Master Plan and Dev. Guidelines.) • Replace inappropriate single- family housing with attractive higher quality residential and non - residential development in a way that protects remaining housing. • Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. • Reduce the over - concentration of apartment buildings in certain neighborhoods by assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a lower density, a higher rate of owner- occupancy, and a more pedestrian- friendly relationship to the street. 2. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of its current and future population. • Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a suitable mix of housing types. • Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher value housing in lower income. areas. • Encourage the development of more new high- quality single- family housing (of • above the median neighborhood value),. to balance the City's large stock of affordable single - family housing. • Help owners update their older houses to meet today's market demands through demonstration projects, education and financial assistance. • Support outreach efforts to potential homebuyers. • Continue to rehabilitate multi - family housing in targeted areas. • Institute or continue housing maintenance requirements such as inspection at time of sale and rental housing code enforcement ". CURRENT STATUS OF HOUSING Brooklyn Center is a fully developed city with little vacant developable land. The future of Brooklyn Center's housing lies largely with the existing housing stock, including its maintenance, preservation and redevelopment. The construction of the city's Housing Action Plan will be greatly influenced by the city's current housing. environment. A summary of some of the elements of the city's current housing situation relevant to the HAP follows: • In 2011, more than 91 percent of the city's owner occupied housing will be over 30 years old and 84 percent will be over 40 years old. • In 2011, more than 91 percent of the renter occupied housing will be over 30 years old and 70 percent will be over 40 years old. i There are approximately 7,286 single family detached homes in Brooklyn Center. Of 3 these, approximately 73 percent are ramblers, most with full basements. The typical Brooklyn Center rambler has approximately 1,000 square feet of living space, excluding the basement level. • Brooklyn Center has 3,595 licensed rental units in the city. Of these 468 are single family properties, 87 are in buildings with one to four units and 3,040 are in buildings with five or more units. The majority, almost 85 percent of the city's rental units, are in larger rental complexes (over five units). The building boom for large rental complexes in the city was in the 1960's and 1970's. Only ten new rental units were constructed from 2000 to 2008. • The median market (taxable) value of single family detached homes in Brooklyn Center was $153,600 for pay 2010 and $137,400 for pay 2011. Recorded home sales in the Brooklyn Center Property Data System show: - The median sale price (minus points) for 2010 for all single family homes was$141,193. There were 102 "good" market transactions in 2010. - The median cash equivalent sale price (minus points) for 2010 for all single family sales, including forced bank and rejected sales, was $108,500. There were a total of 446 transactions in 2010. - The median sale price of all single family homes in 2010 was $115,000. • The apartment rental surveys for 2010 and market advertisements indicate the following apartment rents for 2010 in Brooklyn Center: - Eff. $520 1 Br. $650 • - 2 br. $750 - 3 Br. $850 - Townhome Style 3 Br. $975 - Townhome Style 4 Br. $1100 • Based on foreclosure sales data from the Hennepin County Sheriff's office from 2007, 2008 and 2009, Brooklyn Center had the second highest number of home foreclosures in Hennepin County, at 1,031. Brooklyn Center had the highest annual average percent of housing units foreclosed in Hennepin County at 3.22 percent. DEMOGRAPHICS • The total population figure for the city is expected to remain stable for the next two decades, with 30,104 in 2010 and 29,500 projected in 2030, with 10,76 households in 2010 and 12,100 households projected in 2030. • The city's 65 and over population in 2000 represented 15.4 percent of the total population. Estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2009 show the 65 and over population at 13.2 percent of total population. If the 55 to 64 population is added to the 65 plus population, the percentage of total population becomes 23.5 percent for 2000 and 21.38 percent in 2009. • Since 2000, Brooklyn Center has been experiencing an increasing racial diversity. In 2000 the total population defined as "white alone" was 70.39 percent of the total with all other racial and ethnic groups, including Hispanic, represented 29.61 population �' p, g P � p i percent. In 2009 the ACS estimated the Brooklyn Center population at 50.78 percent "white alone" and 49.22 percent for all other racial and ethnic groups including Hispanic. 4 The 2010 Census results essentially confirms the ACS data with 49.1percent of the • population listed as "white alone" and 50.9 percent for all other racial and ethnic groups. HOUSING NEEDS 'Resolution 2010 -120, approved by the Brooklyn Center City Council, established the affordable housing and life cycle housing goals .for Brooklyn Center for the 2011— 2020 time period. The affordable housing goals range for 2011— 2020 is 106 to 163 units. The life cycle housing goals range for the 2011— 2020 period is 160 to 400 units. The goals are expressed in ranges, and as stated by the Metropolitan Council the ranges are designed "to acknowledge limited levels of available funding, the affordable housing goals were presented as a range where the low end of the range represents the number of housing units that can be accomplished at currently available funding levels region wide and the high end of the range is the city's share of the regional affordable housing need. For life cycle housing, the low end of the range represents the community's total share of the region's affordable housing need. The high end of the life cycle housing range is the potential number of units permitted by the land use guiding in the city's 2030 Comp Plan for medium, high, mixed use, redevelopment, TOD or similarly named residential development, for the total forecasted household growth for the community to 2020, whichever number is lower ". In its Housing Action Plan Checklist, the Metropolitan Council specifies the following: "There is no single "correct" format or minimum requirement for how a • community attempts to address this information in its action plan. Understanding its current and future housing needs, and who can and should benefit from its housing efforts is a practical and prudent step, and should be the basis for the housing implementation activities of any community." In addition to the goals expressed in Resolution 2010 -120 relative to new or expanded affordable housing and life cycle housing, the maintenance and preservation of existing housing, both single and multi - family, is a critical need for Brooklyn Center. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Metropolitan Council uses specific affordability definitions as the basis for counting all new affordable units in the housing stock of municipalities. All new publicly assisted and market rate ownership and rental units are evaluated pursuant to the Metropolitan Council's affordability standards. For purposes of meeting LCA affordable housing goals, the Metropolitan Council is defining affordable housing by the following: • OWNERSHIP HOUSING Communities' affordable ownership goals address the development of ownership opportunities where a purchase price ceiling or target maximum price for a new owner occupied home is based on what a family of four with an income at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) can afford at prevailing interest rates. • 5 • The following table identifies various AMI's and the maximum affordable amounts for 2010 for ownership at 80 percent AML Area Median Income for a family of four, 2010 Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area US Department of Housing and Urban Development Area Median Income $84,000 80% of area median income $64,400 60% of area median income $50,400 30% of area median income $25,200 NOTE: While 80 percent of $84,000 is $67,200, the 80 percent of area median income is capped to the U.S. median family income of $64,400. 2010 Homeownershi Household Income Level: Affordable Home Price 80% of area median income ($64,400 ) $233,100 60% of area median income ($50,400 ) $179,100 • RENTAL HOUSING For affordable rental units, the Metropolitan Council uses the maximum monthly rents permitted in the Minneapolis /St. Paul statistical area for federal low income housing tax • credits rents in rental housing serving households at 50 percent of AML The following table shows the maximum affordable rents for households at 50 percent AMI, along with examples for other income levels: 2010 Rental Housin Bedroom Size Monthly gross rent including tenant -paid utilities, affordable at 50 percent of Area Median Income Efficiency $735 1 bedroom $787 2 bedrooms $945 3 bedrooms $1,092 4 bedrooms $1,218 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN BROOKLYN CENTER Based on available data from the Brooklyn Center City Assessor's office shown on page 4, the majority of ownership and rental units in the city meet the Metropolitan Council's affordability standards. 6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS • The City of Brooklyn Center has supported federal and state housing programs to create and preserve affordable housing. Between 1990 and 2010, the city participated in several affordable housing programs to assist low income households including: • UNITY PLACE TOWNHOMES — PRESERVATION OF 112 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING THROUGH HOUSING REVENUE BOND FINANCING • FOUR COURTS APARTMENTS ( AKA CENTER POINT APARTMENTS) — PRESERVATION OF 252 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH HOUSING REVENUE BOND FINANCING • SHINGLE CREEK TOWER — PRESERVATION OF 122 UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH HOUSING REVENUE BOND FINANCING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) REHABILITATION OF OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING The City has participated in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program since its creation in the 1970's and has funded housing rehabilitation for low and moderate income households from the 1970's to the present. HOUSING MAINTENANCE FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS For over 15 years the City has funded two programs through CDBG that help maintain and • preserve housing for lower income residents 60 years of age and older. These programs, Senior Community Services, Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (HOME) and Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP), Senior Chore Services, provide home maintenance and other services to assist seniors in maintaining their homes. SECTION 8 RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM City inspection staff provides support for the Metro HRA Section 8 rental assistance program by providing contact inspection services for approximately 500 Section 8 rental units in the city. LIFECYCLE HOUSING The LCA asks that the Metropolitan Council report on city efforts made to provide lifecycle housing. The Metropolitan Council describes lifecycle housing as entailing "a range of housing options that meet people's preferences and circumstances at all of life's stages. In particular, the act expects options beyond the predominant large lot detached single family home ". Lifecycle housing is not one specific type of housing but it refers to a range of housing so that cities will have housing units, both rental and ownership that are affordable to a range of buyers, low and moderate income, median and buyer's looking for move up housing. It also encompasses a range and choice of housing for all age groups and household size, from young families to elderly. Although the predominant housing type in Brooklyn Center is the single family detached home, • 7 Brooklyn Center does have components of most lifecycle housing elements including affordable and move up single family housing, attached single family ownership townhomes and condominiums, affordable and market rental housing and senior housing. The primary element of lifecycle housing recognized in the City's 2030 Comp Plan was the need for housing for "individuals and couples beyond middle age who are looking for low maintenance alternatives to their single family detached home. For lack of housing supply to address this housing need is probably causing people to move out of the community ". The City's 2010 Strategic Plan also established a target goal that "housing and accommodations for seniors will be available for aging residents consistent with the demand for housing by this demographic group ". HOUSING MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION As a fully developed city with relatively older housing, maintenance and preservation of its housing stock is one of the most important features of Brooklyn Center's housing planning efforts. Well maintained housing promotes neighborhood satisfaction andstability and helps to maintain housing values. Brooklyn Center's housing stock is at an age where, unless significant maintenance and updating has occurred, it is likely showing signs of deterioration. The City has implemented several programs to directly address housing maintenance for both ownership and rental property. • . Hou g sin maintenance code established standards for housing maintenance including ownership and rental property. • Rental license ordinance establishes standards for maintenance and operation of all rental property. • Partnership with Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) to provide assistance to Brooklyn Center homeowners to provide rehabilitation consulting services and assistance with accessing Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) rehabilitation loans. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) deferred loan program for rehabilitation of owner occupied housing of low to moderate income. FORECLOSURE ISSUES With over 1,000 foreclosures since 2007, and the highest percentage of foreclosed properties in Hennepin County, Brooklyn Center has been significantly affected by home foreclosures and vacancies to the extent that the city's foreclosure and vacant property status must be addressed in future planning for housing. The City has implemented a foreclosure response strategy which includes: 1. Data collection to identify the extent and severity of the problem. • 2. Neighborhood stabilization including regular and ongoing surveys of neighborhoods and assuring property maintenance. 8 3. Prevention and intervention including promotion of education and counseling relative • to foreclosure prevention. 4. Reinvestment return foreclosed /vacant properties to occupancy and encourage homeownership. RENEW HOME PURCHASE PROGRAM In response to the foreclosure situation in Brooklyn Center, the City has created a program to provide down payment and rehab assistance (up to $10,000 per buyer) to purchase foreclosed and vacant homes in the city. Since the program started in 2009, the City has provided assistance to 80 buyers, the majority of which are at 50 percent to 80 percent of AML NEIGHBORHOOD .STABILIZATION PROGRAM Brooklyn Center is a recipient of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 1) funds authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The City received $1.9 million in NSP 1 funds to acquire, rehabilitate and sell vacant/foreclosed homes to qualified owner occupanty as per NSP requirements. The City, through its Economic Development Authority (EDA) is working through its non- profit partner, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) to rehabilitate eight properties. It is anticipated NSP 1 funds will provide for 10 to 15 rehabilitated homes in total. The City is currently working with Hennepin County to apply for NSP 3 funds to acquire and rehabilitate an estimated additional 13 foreclosed units of housing. VACANT BUILDING ORDINANCE • The City has implemented a vacant building ordinance which requires registration and inspection of vacant properties, the majority of which are foreclosed properties. The registration process provides a mechanism to assure that vacant properties are monitored and maintained in an acceptable condition so that they do not become a public nuisance. HOUSING ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION The primary intent of the City's Housing Action Plan to further define and provide options for executing the City's Housing and Community Goals expressed in the Comprehensive Plan, while addressing the requirements of the Livable Communities Act, (LCA). The following pages provide a further definition of the Comprehensive Plans Goals and Objectives. HOUSING GOALS 2011— 2020 The Metropolitan Council forecast for new housing to be built in Brooklyn Center from 2011 to 2020 is 400 units. Of the forecast amount of 400, 163 or approximately 40 percent of the units should be affordable. Among other factors, the Metropolitan Council's determination for affordable units is based on proximity to new job growth, percentage of existing affordable housing and proximity to public transit services. • 9 • As addressed in the Comprehensive Plan (page 4 -8), "cities are not required to construct or even finance construction of the allocated affordable housing units. Rather, land to accommodate multi- family housing of at least as many units as allocated needs to be properly designated. Zoning or plan designation in place to allow construction of multi - family housing meeting or exceeding the number of allocated units where only a building permit would be required ". On pages 4 -8 and 4 -9 of the Comp Plan, the following description of the City's Zoning Districts addresses available land for housing, "The City's Zoning Ordinance contains seven residential districts, which permit a complete range of housing types. Densities range from approximately four units per acre in the R -1 single district (buildings of ist in the R -7 multi-family d g units per acre ( it district to as man as 30 um Y family Y p six or more stories). Townhouses are permitted in the R -3, R -4 and R -5 districts; multi - Y p are family apartments permitted in the R -4 through R -7 districts. Most residential zoned R -1 the R -2 districts are located close to the city's souther neighborhoods are zo , i i t g boundary, and the higher density districts are generally contiguous with areas of ro osed planning current zoning and g or multi-family housing. Between g p p p townhouses y designations, there is enough land planned for multi - family housing to provide 163 units ". POTENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTAREAS ' Comprehensive Plan .4 -12 and 4 -13 identifies several areas as potential The City's Com rehens ) ty p (pp areas for development of new housing. Of the areas ide ntified only the 57 and Logan an site • is a vacant parcel owned by the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center (EDA). The 57 and Logan site is an 8+ acre site currently zoned C -2 and would be an appropriate site for mid- density housing as part of a mixed use development. The following is an excerpt from the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan and identifies potential development /redevelopment sites: • "Many areas along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor that are currently occupied by 'single- family homes or underutilized as commercial sites would be available for redevelopment for high or mid- density housing or more intensive office and commercial uses. The corridor is well served by transit lines. • The City Center area, including the Opportunity Site, 57 and Logan and other area near Brookdale Shopping Center, could be strengthened by the addition of complementary land uses such as mid- density housing, along with structured parking to free up land now in surface lots, improved pedestrian and transit amenities, and improve public or semi - public spaces. Of the 173 acres in this area, 27 acres are with 145 units of townhouses and 180 units of multiple family residential are planned in this area. See Table 2 -1 of Section 2, Land Uses) The City's future redevelopment efforts may also focus on replacement of multi - family housing in the 69 and Humboldt area, either with medium - density housing such as townhouses or with an extension of the adjacent Shingle Creek Industrial Park. Industrial uses, if appropriately landscaped and buffered, could extend as fax east as Humboldt Avenue North. 10 The Mississippi river front offers unique opportunities for future redevelopment efforts. • Upgrading this area with common amenities could increase housing values and community pride. • The area on Lyndale Avenue from 53 to 57 along the Mississippi river could be an opportunity for increased residential concentration, supplemental recreation, neighborhood gathering or historic amenities. • Redevelopment of the area could create a critical link with the 57 Avenue trails, housing opportunities and the existing housing in the Bellevue neighborhood. along 53 Avenue. This type of redevelopment would add additional housing opportunities for residents as well as draw new people to the area. • This sort of use would be consistent with the "Above the Falls" master plan and other appropriate planning proposals from the City of Minneapolis to the south. HOUSING FOR SENIORS The 2030 Comprehensive Plan (page 4 -10) describes "there is a lack of housing designed for individuals and couples beyond middle age who are looking for low maintenance alternatives to their single family detached home. The lack of housing supply to address this housin g probably need is robabl causing e to move out of the community". gp eo p "At the Community Comprehensive Planning meetings the housing needs of seniors • looking to move out of independent living situations and into housing that includes a degree of supervision and support was brought up as a housing issue ". Demographic data shows that the 55 to 65+ population is Brooklyn Center was relatively stable from 2000 to 2009, decreasing slightly as a percentage of population from 2000 to 2009 at approximately 21 percent of the population. The development of senior housing will be dependent on market demand and specifically on what segment of the senior population is creating the demand which could range from younger seniors looking for housing with few services to the frail elderly requiring significant services. Additionally, it will be important to located senior housing near community services, including parks, shops, medical, etc. ADDITIONAL 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following recommendations (in quotes) are found on pp. 4 -14 lnd 4 -15 Of the Comp Plan, followed by recommended action steps: • "Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Insure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors ". — Continue the City's Remove and Rebuild Program by purchasing homes that are either foreclosed, vacant, unsafe, blighted or not marketable, for purposes of demolition and • redevelopment. 11 • • "Help owners update their older houses to meet today's market demands through demonstration projects, education and financial assistance ". — Continue to work with Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation Housing Resource Center to provide construction assistance and access to rehabilitation loans. Continue to fund Community Development Block Grant deferred loan program. • "Support outreach efforts to potential homebuyers ". — Continue City's Renew Loan Program for vacant and foreclosed properties along with continued participation in the Federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program for housing redevelopment and rehabilitation for sale to eligible home buyers. • " Continue to rehabilitate multi - family housing in targeted areas". Consider options for preservation of multi- family housing through partnerships with for profit and non- profit developers and use of funding tools such as housing revenue bonds, tax credits and tax increment financing. • " Institute continued housing maintenance requirements such as inspection at time of sale and rental housing code enforcement ". — Continue enforcement of Chapter 12, Building Maintenance Code, City's vacant property registration ordinance, crime free multi- housing program and evaluate new tools such as time of sale ordinance. • 12 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT HOUSING ACTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF PLAN TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2010 -120 approved the City's continued participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentives Account; and WHEREAS, submission of a Housing Action Plan to the Metropolitan Council to provide implementation of the City's Housing Goals, pursuant to Resolution 2010 -120, is a requirement of continued participation in Metropolitan Livable Communities Act programs; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared a Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Action Plan for Council consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Housing Action Plan and has determined it is in the best interest of the City of Brooklyn Center to continue to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Local Housing Incentive Account. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ci t of • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Housing Action Plan is hereby accepted and approved. 2. Staff is hereby directed to submit the Housing Action Plan to the Metropolitan Council as per the requirements of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • City Council Agenda Item No. 6e • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: 7 June 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for Financial Advisory Services Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of a Request for Proposals for Financial Advisory Services document for distribution. Background: Every six years the City of Brooklyn Center solicits proposals from multiple financial advisory services firms. This requirement is specified in City Council Code of Policies Section 2.80 (copy attached). One of the reasons for soliciting these proposals on a regular basis is to ensure the competitive pricing of our professional services. It also allows firms that may have developed new and important methods or technologies in financial advisory services to present their abilities to us for consideration. The most prominent use of the financial advisor is the sale of bonds for capital projects and development. In such cases the financial advisor assists the City by preparing documents for the legal compliance of each sale with federal and state regulations and financial accounting standards. They prepare documents known by such exciting titles as the Preliminary Recommendations, the Official Statement and the Bond Record. They compile bids for bonds as received on bid day and calculate the overall interest impacts of each bid. They also assist the City in acquiring a rating for the bonds from Moody's Investor's Service and/or Standard and Poor's. At other times the financial advisor will provide management consulting, specialized contract services such as interim guidance on finance during leadership transitions, capital planning advice, and technology application recommendations. The Director of Fiscal & Support Services has developed a document detailing the services required from the financial advisor at a minimum. Each interested advisory firm will return a proposal to the City with its rates for the various classifications of staffing use (Principal, Vice President, Advisor, Clerical Staff, and Analysis Staff) and a projected cost for bond issuance services. These dollar amounts are reviewed along with track record for performance and expected ability to deliver the services promised. Upon receipt and analysis of these proposals, staff will recommend two or more of the firms for interview by a Review Committee, as specified in Policy Section 2.80.3C. From these interviews and reference checks comes the final recommendation to be made to the City Council on engagement of a financial advisor for the ensuing six year period. • 4fission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life andEreserves the public trust µ SECTION H — GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies SCHEDULE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICIES • 2.80 Policy and Procedure on Requests for Proposals for Financial Professional Services L Need for Policy The City needs a policy and procedure to provide for the :orderly conduct of requesting proposals for professional services for handling financial 'affairs, to ensure that all services will be periodically reviewed, and that the proper balance will be maintained between cost and quality of services. 2. Policy A. All professional services in the area of City finances will be periodically let out for request. for proposals (RFPs) according to an established schedule. B. Service levels will be monitored by the City Council and Staff and if unsatisfactory service is received, that contract will be re- advertised prior to the year set in the schedule. C: Quality of service will be the primary factor in awarding a contract. for professional service, but cost will also be a determinant. 3. Procedure A. A schedule shall be established for the conduct of RFPs. The schedule should be adhered to unless there is a performance problem or other justification for an earlier RFP. Going to the market too frequently with RFPs expends Staff time, requires extensive orientation of new professionals, and discourages quality firms from submitting proposals at their most attractive price since they will expect to only have the contract for a short time. B. Specifications tailored to the professional service to be advertised will be prepared by Staff, reviewed by the Financial Commission, and approved by the City Council. C. A review committee made up of the City Manager and Finance Director shall review proposals for Banking Services, Insurance Agent, Risk Management Consultant, and Custodian for Investment Securities. Proposals for Auditor and Financial Advisor shall be initially screened by Staff, and then reviewed by a committee of City Council Members and Financial Commission Members appointed by the Mayor in consultation with the Chair of . the Financial Commission, with the approval of the City Council, which committee shall also include the City Manager and Finance Director. • City of Brooklyn Center 5 SECTION H — GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies D. The specifications will emphasize the abilities, qualifications, and experience of the applicant firms to provide high quality service to the City. Price will be considered after one or more applicants have been identified as providing the desired. quality of service. When appropriate, the specification shall require prices to be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope to be opened after applicants have been ranked according to quality. E. The City Manager shall make a recommendation to the City Council of a provider to be appointed to . a multi-year engagement. It shall be written in the engagement that the appointment may be terminated earlier. ��. F fi1llCing F:a. . �� �* ..�_.a,::x����..«s.. •• _.. �" ,.:'.,.. ��ra � �- -..,4; e "o �e ��� Insurance Agent Risk Management Custodian for Auditor �} Advisor for Services Consultant Investment Bond Sales Securities ua1 = bWIN W 6 years 6 years 6 years 6 years 6 years 6 years 'Rex n 2004 2002 2003 2003 1998 2002 QU6.. RFP s .._.._. RFP flip . 20q RFP RFP f: RFP Dw RFP RFP jtl'1' RFP RFP. RFP *Awarded to Deloite Touche who subsequently withdrew after the FY 2001 audit. Balance of engagement awarded to HLB Tautges Redpath for FY 2002— FY 2006. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos. 2006 -120; 2000 -120; 99 -20; City Council Minutes 5/28/96 City of Brooklyn Center 6 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Request for Proposals • for Financial Advisory Services I. Statement of Purpose The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota is inviting proposals for the purpose of selecting a firm to serve as independent financial advisor to the City. The City expects to select a financial advisor who will serve the City for .a period of four to six years, commencing .on 1 January 2012. The independent financial. advisor will be expected to perform services as required by the City i'n a professional and timely manner. II. General Information Regarding the City The City of Brooklyn Center is a northern suburb of Minneapolis. The. City is wholly within Hennepin County and encompasses an area.of approximately 8.5 square miles. The Mississippi River forms the Cit eastern pp tY boundar The City experienced its most rapid growth from 1959 to 1979 when the City's population grew from 4,300 to its peak of 35,173. Following a period of decline • in both p o p ulation and the number of households, h I ds both categories have stabilized and are recovering slowly. The 2010 U.S. Census certified the population at 30,104, a 3.2% increase from the 2000 Census. The number of households decreased from 11,430 in 2000 to 10,756 in 2010; likely a_ result of the foreclosure crisis. Brooklyn Center has been a municipal corporation since 1911, and is governed under a Home Rule Charter adopted in 1966 and subsequently amended. The City has a Council- Manager form of government. The Mayor and four City Council members b s are elected to serve overlapping four-year terms. Pp 9 Y The current governing body is: Tim Willson Mayor Term expires 12 -31 -2014 Carol Kleven Council Member Term expires 12 -31 -2014 .Dan Ryan Council Member Term expires 12 -31 -2014 Kay Lasman Council Member Term' 12 -31 -201.2 Tim Roche Council Member Term expires 12 -31 -2012 The City Manager, Cornelius Boganey, is responsible for the administration of Council policy and the day -to -day administration of the City. The City Manager is • 7 appointed by the City Council and serves at its discretion. Mr. Boganey has served as City Manager since September of 2006. Daniel Jordet serves as Director of Fiscal & Support Services and is responsible for the City's financial operations. His department handles all financial reporting, investments and debt issuance. Mr. Jordet has served the City since January of 2004. Prior to that time he served as the chief financial officer in the cities of Mankato and Saint Peter. III. Scope of Services The independent financial advisor will assist the City in the analysis, structure, issuance and management of debt on a regular ongoing basis. The financial advisor may also be called upon to provide other financial advisory services on an as needed basis, such as analyzing capital financing plans, tax increment financing plans or projects, utility or service rate analysis, housing financing or assistance with negotiated transactions. Services will include but not be limited to, the following tasks: Task 1: Debt Issue Development and Oversight Task 2: Continuing Disclosure /Arbitrage Rebate Management • Task 3: Financial Planning and Debt Management Task 4: Economic 'Development Planning Any outlined task(s) requiring periodic updates and monitoring by the City and /or the financial advisor for which working documents and /or computer models are necessary will be formatted so as to be compatible with the City's most current software. Such working documents will become property of the City. Task 1: Debt Issue Development and Oversight The financial advisor will be responsible for the oversight of issuance of all competitive and negotiated debt sale /bond sale transactions. This task will include A.) Planning and Development; B.) Marketing; C.) Bond Closing and D.) Work Products. A. Planning and Development The financial advisor will: 1.) . Research and advise the City on aspects of tax exemption and • arbitrage in cooperation with Bond Counsel and the City Attorney; 8 2.) Review preliminary feasibility studies in cooperation with City • officials and administrative staff, attorneys, bond counsel and others as requested by the City outlining each proposed project, its costs, funding sources and alternatives, existing debt and future debt service requirements and cash. flow and revenue needs; 3.) Analyze the proposed financing, including financing alternatives to determine methods of strengthening marketability, and recommend the best method of marketing consistent with current economic and conditions and rating agency criteria; 4.) Consult with established rating agencies regarding proposed financing and assist the City in obtaining the most favorable rating possible by directing preparation of appropriate information including analysis of City credit rating with reference to standards, national trends and other relevant factors and advising the City on measures that may be taken to improve bond and credit ratings;, 5.) Act as a liaison with bond counsel and coordinate the work of other professionals providing similar services. B. Marketing The financial advisor will assist the City in the marketing of bond issues. The following duties will be required. • 1.) Advise the City on the appropriate terms and conditions of the sale, such as maturity schedule, discounts, par, premium, net interest cost and true interest rate. The financial advisor will consult with the City and bond counsel concerning bond covenants and advise on advantageous features such as parity provisions,. reserve requirements, sinking fund payments and redemption provisions. The financial advisor will also assist the City in preparation of call notices and provisions. 2.) Advise on the timing of bond sales, taking into consideration such factors as changing economic conditions, current and projected market trends and convenience to the City. 3.) Assist in preparation of the Official Statement on behalf of the City . and with the cooperation of the City and the bond counsel. Advise the City on full disclosure requirements and conformance to suggested guidelines. Coordinate review and revision with the City, bond counsel and underwriter. This Official Statement will be subject to final review by City officials, City staff and bond counsel. 4.) Assist in publicizing the issue with an Official Statement, notice of sale, bid forms and such other means necessary and advisable to • develop regional public and institutional interest, 9 5.) Advertise the sale in prominent publications as may be appropriate to the sale in addition to coordinating local publication requirements with bond counsel. C. Bond Closing The financial advisor will assist the City in directing, coordinating and supervising bond sale closing transaction. Such services will include: 1.) Coordinate the compilation of transcript material; 2.) Oversee all bond pricing and registration procedures; 3. Solicit ro proposals for investment of funds if necessary. p p D. Work Product The financial advisor will be expected to provide the following work products for each debt offering unless specific arrangements are made for one or more of these products to be provided by others: 1.) Pre -sale analysis; 2.) Offering statement; . 3.) Post sale analysis: 4.) Such other studies, including analysis of funding alternatives, cash flow projections and materials necessary for.financial planning and bond sale purposes. Task 2: Continuing Disclosure / Arbitrage Rebate Management The financial advisor will assist the City in the administration of continuing disclosure and arbitrage/ rebate management. These services will include, but are not limited to: A. Compile and assist with the distribution of an annual report for submission to all nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories and the state information depository, if one is designated, and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, as required by the provisions of the specific issue; B. Monitor material events through periodic requests for information and assist with the disclosure of material .events; C. Advise on arbitrage and /or rebate provisions; 10 D. Monitor funds subject to arbitrage restrictions and calculate rebates. • Task 3: Financial Planning and Debt Management The financial advisor will assist the City in financial planning and debt management activities. These services. will include, but are not limited to: A. Assist and advise with the implementation of a long -range financial plan for the City. Development of the plan will .include: 1.) establishing policies and procedures; 2.) identifying and evaluating objectives; 3.) review.and analyze cost effective alternatives for financing the City's operating and capital requirements; and 4.) review revenue requirements of the various enterprise funds. B. Assist and advise the City in managing its short- and long -term debt programs. Such services will include: 1.) assist and advise on development of debt management policies including total debt, levy and per capita levels, payback provisions, etc., 2.) monitor markets for opportunities to refinance existing City debt; . 3.) advise and assist the City in determining the scope of new debt financing; • 4.) assist in communications with the financial community to .promote the City's debt securities and improve bond ratings; and 5.) assist the City in meeting its secondary market disclosure requirements. Task 4: Economic Development Planning The financial advisor will assist the City in fiscal planning of debt and debt management of its economic development activities in the following areas: A. Housing; including senior housing, market rate housing, housing rehabilitation and pro forma models for projects. B. Tax Increment Financing; including TIF plans, TIF debt management plans, TIF policies and procedures, issuance of TIF debt, and pro forma models for projects. C. Economic Development; including establishment of policies and procedures, project analysis, tax impacts, and job creation. possibilities. • . I1 . • IV. Proposal Form and Content A. Qualifications Proposals should include responses to each of the following items. Include sample work products as appropriate to address the services expected, as s outlined in the Scope of Services section. Please construct the proposal I with responses in the same order as listed below to facilitate review and comparison by the Review Committee. 1. Experience of the firm with bond issues in.the State of Minnesota. 2. Experience of the firm with jurisdictions of comparable characteristics to the City of Brooklyn Center. 3. Identify the primary contact that will be assigned to work with the City. List the qualifications and experience of the individual. If tY q p more than one person is assigned identify the senior level contact. Include resumes for all financial advisor staff listed as contacts for the City. 4. Experience dealing with bond rating agencies.. Summarize the firms approach to preparing and presenting bond rating information. 5. Outline the firm's experience in providing debt issue development i and oversight services as outlined in the Scope of Services section. 6. Outline the firm's experience in providing continuing disclosure /arbitrage rebate management services as outlined in the Scope of Services. 7. Outline the firm's experience in providing financial planning and debt management services as outlined in the Scope of Services section. 8. Outline the firm's experience in providing economic development planning services as outlined in the Scope of Services section. 9. Summarize the firm's support services capability (i.e. computer printing, word processing, graphics, etc.) and whether these services are done in -house or are contracted out. 10. Outline the firm's experience in advance refunding for local governments, 11. Describe the process by which your firm will acquire a working knowledge of the City's outstanding debt so as to be able to advise the city on any financial, legal, market or regulatory issues in the future. 12. List of references relating to projects completed for Focal governments over the past five years with comparable characteristics to the City of Brooklyn Center, preferably in the 12 State of Minnesota. Provide name, address and telephone number of a contact with the reference government. • B. Fees Provide the pricing schedule the firm will use to charge the City for providing the services described in the Scope of Services section. Differentiate between fees which may be based upon a sliding scale tied to the size of a bond issue, fees for different types of bond issues, fees which may be flat fees for service or a flat annual fee and hourly rates for all personnel who may be billed on that basis. Also indicate the level of 'service commensurate with the quoted price. If the firm is proposing that the City pay the cost of incidental expenses state clearly what types of expenses will be included in these charges. C. Terms and Conditions 1. The City reserves the right to reject any or all of the proposals or to negotiate a. contract in the best interests of the City at the absolute and sole discretion of the Brooklyn Center City Council 2. The firm will submit five copies of its proposal to the Finance Department of the City no later than 3:00 PM on Friday, 26 August 2011 Submittals may be addressed to: • City of Brooklyn Center Financial Advisor RFP 630.1 Shingle Creek Boulevard Brooklyn .Center, Minnesota . 55430 -2199 All proposals must be signed by an individual duly authorized by the firm. All proposals will be come property of the City. No public bid opening will be held. A list of the names of the firms submitting proposals will be made available no later than 11:00 AM on Tuesday, 30 August 2011. 3. The Director of Fiscal and Support Services, Daniel 3ordet, will be the City's.primary contact for this process. He will coordinate appointments with staff and /or the Review Committee for the interview and selection process. Questions and requests for information will be directed to him. Any other contact with City staff, the Mayor, Council Members or City Manager may be grounds for immediate rejection of the firm's proposal, at the discretion of the City. 4. Only independent financial advisors should submit proposals to the City. An independent financial advisor is a firm that does.not • 13 engage in the underwriting of municipal securities nor is it affiliated • with any firms engaging in the underwriting of municipal securities. 5. The City reserves the right to request clarification of any information submitted and to request additional information for any or all proposers. 6. Any agreement or contract resulting from this process and the acceptance of a firm's proposal will be on forms supplied by or approved by the City and will contain, at a minimum, the applicable provisions of this Request for Proposals. The City reserves the right to reject any agreement or contract that does not conform to the Request for Proposals, any additional negotiated terms or conditions, and City or State requirements for agreements and contracts. 7. The firm will not subcontract or assign any interest in any contract or agreement without the prior written consent of the City executed by an authorized individual, 8. No reports, information or data given to or prepared by the financial advisor under the contract or agreement will be made available to any individual or organization by the financial advisor without the prior written approval of the City. 9. All data, documents and other information provided to the City by the financial advisor as a result of this Request for Proposals will become property of the City and subject to its disposal. 10.All costs associated with the preparation ofthe firm's proposal will be the responsibility of the firm submitting the proposal. 11.The financial advisor selected will provide evidence that they carry professional liability insurance with minimum per incident coverage of $ 1,000,000 and a maximum deductible of $50,000. 12.The financial advisor will be expected to meet with City Officials at Brooklyn Center. City Hall as needed during the course of the service engagement.'` 13.The City expects the financial advisor to respond to occasional telephone inquiries that do not require considerable research on a complimentary basis. 14.This document is a Request for Proposals, not for Bids. The City, therefore, reserves the right to negotiate with any qualifying firm or party on any matter in the proposal. V. Selection Process A. Interviews The City may select two or more firms to make presentations to a Review Committee prior to making a final recommendation to the City Council. 14 Each selected firm will make a presentation of no more than 30 minutes to the Committee and then respond to questions from the Committee.. • B. Schedule The City has developed the following schedule of events for this process: Proposals Due Friday, 26 August 2011 Selection of Finalists Friday, 9 September 2011 Interview Finalists Tuesday, 20 September 2011 through Friday, 23 September 2011 Recommendation to City Council Monday, 24 October 2011 C. Evaluation of Proposals. A Review Committee will.consider the proposals and make a recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation will be based on the following criteria: 1. Quality of the proposal and its responsiveness to the criteria of the Request for Proposals. 2. Experience and creativity in providing financial advisory services to cities of comparable size and character to the City of Brooklyn Center. • 3. Experience and availability of staff assigned to serve the City, 4. Proven ability to provide all of the services described in the. Scope of Services. 5. References. 6. Fees. Questions or requests for additional information may be directed to the Director of Fiscal and Support Services at diordet Oci.brooklyn- center.mn.us or at telephone number (763) 569 =3345. Thank you for your consideration of this Request for Proposals. • 15 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its . adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A "REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROVIDING FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES" DOCUMENT WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by its City Council Code of Polices to periodically solicit proposals for performance of financial advisory services and assist in the sale of bonds and other debt instruments; and WHEREAS, a form for obtaining those proposals, the "Request for Proposals for Financial Advisory Services" has been developed by staff and reviewed and approved by the Financial Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to obtain such professional services at both the highest level of industry performance and the most reasonable cost possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the "Request for Proposals for Financial Advisory Services ", dated June 2011, is approved and should be distributed to firms wishing to prepare proposals for performance of the annual audit. June 13 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • City Council Agenda Item No. 6f • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM . DATE: June 3, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT: Performance measures declaration Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the resolution declaring approval of annual performance measures for the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: In 2010 the Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation (CLRI). In February 2011, the Council released a standard set of ten performance measures for cities that will aid residents, taxpayers state and local officials in determining the efficacy of cities in providing services, and measure resident opinions on those services. Cities that choose to participate in the new standards measure program may be eligible for a reimbursement in LGA (not to exceed $25,000) and exemption from levy limits: Participation in the program is voluntary. In order to receive the per capita reimbursement in • 2011, levy limit exemption for calendar year 2012, cities must: File a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2011. This report must consist of a declaration approved by the City Council stating that the City has adopted the corresponding 10 performance measures. In addition the City is required to report results to citizens annually. The City Of Brooklyn Center has established performance measures for several years and we have shared results with Citizens in our newsletter and on our website. The measures that we have adopted are far more comprehensive the 10 standard measures established by the Council on Local Results and Innovation. For this reason we have been authorized by the Office of the State Auditor to substitute the City Of Brooklyn Center previously adopted performance measure for the 10 standard measures proposed by the CLRI. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources • ;Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe contntunitp that enhances the quali(v of liji anti preserves the. public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved • its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING APPROVAL OF ANNUAL PERMORMANCE MEASURES WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council met March 5, 2011, reviewed and revised its Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has developed and approved twelve Strategic and Ongoing Goals with Desired Outcomes and Success Targets; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Legislature has established a performance measurement program for cities that provides for reimbursement of LGA and exemption from levy limits; and WHEREAS, the Strategic and Ongoing Goals established by the City of Brooklyn Center meet or exceed the standard measures provided by the Council of Results and Innovation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it approves the attached Goals, Desired Outcomes and Success Targets and commits to reporting our success in achieving these goals to the Citizens of Brooklyn • Center annually as required by MSA 6.91 Local Performance Measurement and Reporting Statute. June 13, 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 . Desired Outcomes and Success Targets S.G. 1. We will ensure a safe and secure community The threat and fear of real or perceived crime among citizens and others will be greatly reduced (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Reduce violent crime by 10% or more each year 2. Reduce property crime by 10% of more each year Citizens will feel and be safe in their homes, areas of concern and throughout the City. (d.o.2) 1. City survey results will reflect that all residents feel safe in their homes. • 2. City survey results will reflect that all residents feel safe throughout the City. (No places deemed unsafe) 3. City survey results will reflect that all residents feel safe walking alone at night. S.G.2.We will aggressively proceed with implementation of City's redevelopment plans Private redevelopment will expand and improve (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. At least 50 % of the privately owned residential vacant properties will be redeveloped within the next five years adding to the adjusted for inflation taxable value of the City. Redevelopment of these properties will commence within two (2) years. 2. At least 80 % of privately owned vacant commercial properties will complete redevelopment within the next five years adding to the adjusted for inflation taxable value of the City. Redevelopment of these properties will commence within two (2) years. 3 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 3. At least 50% of the blighted /economically obsolete commercial properties will be redeveloped . within the next five years adding to the adjusted for inflation City tax base. Redevelopment of these properties will commence within two (2) years. "Opportunity Site" redevelopment will commence (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. 30 % of the privately owned properties north and east of John Martin Drive will commence redevelopment within five years. 2. All of the privately owned properties north and east of John Martin Drive will complete redevelopment within ten (10) years adding to the adjusted for inflation value of the City. 3. At least 50 % of EDA owned and privately owned properties located south and west of John Martin Drive will commence and complete redevelopment within five (5) years adding to the adjusted for inflation taxable value of the City. 4. All EDA owned and privately owned properties located south and west of John Martin Drive will commence and complete redevelopment within Ten (10) years adding to the adjusted for inflation taxable value of the City. • EDA owned properties redevelopment will proceed expeditiously (d.o.3) Success Targets 1. At least 50 % of the EDA properties owned (non- Opportunity Site) commercial properties will commence redevelopment within the next 2 years. 2. All EDA owned commercial property will have completed redevelopment within ten (10) years adding to the adjusted for inflation taxable value of the City. S.G.3.We will stabilize and Improve residential neighborhoods Citizens will benefit from a diverse stock of housing types and styles (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. The number of home remodels will increase. 2. The value added home improvements will exceed $7,500 average valuation per permit in each neighborhood (i.e. garage additions, bathrooms, bedrooms, 2 nd stories, energy efficiency) annually. • 4 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 . 3. Housing and accommodations for seniors will be available for aging residents consistent with the demand for housing by this demographic group. 4. There will be new housing construction to accommodate the needs of those seeking a modern housing and move up housing choices Owners and occupants of housing in residential neighborhoods will comply with City codes and regulations which will be adequate to assure a safe well maintained and attractive community (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. Of all residential properties inspected 90 % will be in full compliance with property maintenance codes (% violation types) 2. All residents surveyed are aware of, understand and support the enforcement of city housing and neighborhood codes Owner occupied housing will increase as a percentage of total housing (d.o.3) • Success Targets 1. At least 95% of single family residential properties will be owner occupied. 2. At least 95 % of all new housing will be built for owner occupancy Problems associated with foreclosures will be dramatically reduced or eliminated (d.o.4) Success Targets 1. 90 % of qualified vacant properties will be registered and in compliance with the vacant building ordinance. 2. All vacant properties will be in compliance with property maintenance codes. Residential property values will improve and citizens will be proud of their neighborhood and community (d.o.5) Success Targets 1. Within three years the average residential sales price will stop declining • 2. Within five years residential sales prices will increase at a rate equal to or greater than rate of increase in comparable communities 5 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 3. All residential properties will be well maintained and landscaped • 4. All residents surveyed will say they are proud of their neighborhood. 5. All residents surveyed will say they are proud of Brooklyn Center. S.G.4.We MY positively address the community demographic makeup and increasing cultural diversity All demographic groups will be represented and encouraged to participate in civic, governmental, community organizations and activities (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Members of all communities will have equal access and representation in civic, governmental, community organizations and activities Youth will be adequately served by recreation and educational programs and activities (d.o.2) Success Targets • 1. All youth who desire to will be productively engaged in recreational activities or educational programs 2. Participation in community programs and activities will reflect the demographic makeup of the community. The social, health and housing needs of the aging and moderate income population will be improved (d.o.3) Success Targets 1. Service gaps in the social, health and housing needs of aging and moderate income community members will be reduced and eliminated over time. • 6 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 • S.G.5.We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements City government buildings, major equipment and other physical assets of the City will be maintained and improved (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Meet or exceed the minimum maintenance condition standard for City facilities. 2. Customers provide positive feedback pertaining to City facilities (clean, attractive buildings). 3. Maintain public access and availability to City park facilities and infrastructure. 4. Reduce graffiti occurrences and complaints. Neighborhood streets and utilities will be maintained and improved (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. Citizens rate reconstruction projects as meeting or exceeding expectations via surveys sent to project area residents. 2. Using a pavement index rating system, meet or exceed the established acceptable roadway rating standard. 3. Reduce potholes and roadway complaints. 4. Reduce sewer blockage and watermain breakage /complaints, 5. Complete the citywide street and utility reconstruction program within 10 years. The traveling public will benefit from multi - modal transportation options fostered and provided by the City (d.o.3) Success Targets 1. Minimize an increase to future traffic delays and congestion. 2. Minimize the amount of regional traffic flow on local streets. 3. Increase alternative modes of transportation used. Citizens will benefit from the expansion and improvement of needed technology infrastructure as cost effective feasible options become • available (d.o.4) 7 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 Success Targets • 1. Reduce City government expenses through the application of technology. 2. Improve City services to the citizens through the application of technology. 3. Preserve environmental resources and conservation of energy through the application of technology. S. G. 6. We will respond to increased public awareness and interest in environmental sustainability and green community issues Public appreciation for the environment will improve and recycling and energy conservation will improve (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Within three years all residents surveyed will understand the value of recycling and energy conservation and at least 70 % will have changed their behavior in order to conserve environmental resources. 2. Within five years energy consumption in the City will be reduced significantly. 3. Within five years City Government energy consumption will be reduced significantly. • gY p The purchasing power of the City will support the goal of an environmental sustainability (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. The City will purchase recycled materials whenever costs are reasonable and quality is acceptable. 2. The City will increase the share of purchased recycled materials by 10 % annually for the next five years. I The City will eliminate the use of products, chemicals or compounds that pose a risk to human health or to the environment whenever a viable cost effective alternative is available. 4. The City will purchase environmentally friendly equipment and vehicles whenever performance requirements and costs are comparable. • 8 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 O. G. 1. We will continue to provide streamlined, cost effective quality services with limited resources The quality of service delivered by the City will consistently meet or exceed customer expectations (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Customer surveys for City services delivered will reflect customer satisfaction from not less than 90% of respondents Service delivery will improve on an ongoing basis Success Targets 1. Implementation and execution of continuous improvement program throughout all departments 2. Qualification for Malcolm Baldridge or comparable quality improvement award. 3. Cost effectiveness performance benchmark comparisons from each department will reflect upper quartile performance for each high priority benchmark measure 0.G.2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City City funds will be protected against loss (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. All City funds will be FDIC insured up to the legal maximum per account 2. Any funds in excess of the FDIC maximum in any one account will be properly collateralized. 3. The City's investment portfolio will be diversified so as to minimize potential losses on individual securities. The City administration will provide meaningful short, Intermediate and long term fiscal planning (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. The operating budget document will provide annual and multi year operating plans. • 2. Staff will annually provide life -cycle capital plans for all long -Lived assets. 9 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 City will take appropriate actions to buffer essential services against the . effects of significant economic downturns (d.o.3) Success Targets 1. Fund reserves as indicated by year end cash balance will be maintained at levels allowing for short term funding of operations in emergency situations 2. Essential services as determined by the City Council will be funded from non - volatile resources. City will position itself for economic growth (d.o.4) Success Targets 1. The City will keep current and adhere to the Comprehensive Plan 2. Capital Improvement Plans will reflect the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan O.G.3.We will move toward maintaining or lowering the level of the City's property taxes • Except in extraordinary circumstances the property tax levy will not increase faster than the rate of inflation (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Property tax levy increases do not exceed the rate of inflation. 2. If the tax levy increase exceeds the rate of inflation a clear, extraordinary circumstance is identified. The City will expand the proportion of industrial and commercial tax base to relieve the residential property tax burden (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. The City commercial /industrial tax base increases at a rate faster than the residential tax base. 10 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 . The inflation adjusted property taxes paid by the median family household will be stabilized or reduced over time (d.o.3) Success Targets 1. The inflation adjusted city property taxes payable for the median valued single family home will be equal to or less than the calculated city taxes payable for the prior year. 0.G.4.We will ensure the city's influence at the legislature State and Federal legislators will be kept informed regarding City needs that may be affected by legislation (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. Annually, the City Council and Staff will assess legislative needs and communicate directly with appropriate Local, State and Federal legislators We will maintain positive ongoing relationships with Local, State and Federal legislators (d.o.2) • Success Targets 1. Legislative officials will address the City Council annually regarding their efforts on behalf of our shared constituents. 2. Legislators will sponsor and support legislation on behalf of the City O. G.S. We will Improve the image of the City with citizens and those outside of the City's borders Citizens and others throughout the State will recognize Brooklyn Center as a safe, quality, attractive community in which to live work and play (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. The rate of property value increase in each property classification will equal or exceed the average rate of increase in the Hennepin County and in the State. 2. Citizen Survey results will reflect the perception that Brooklyn Center is a safe, • quality, attractive place to live work and play. 3. Positive press regarding the City of Brooklyn Center will increase. 11 Strategic Plan Brooklyn Center 2011 O. G.6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high gualit and that the storm water is properly managed The City's drinking water will meet or exceed safe drinking water standards of the State of Minnesota (d.o.1) Success Targets 1. City will meet or exceed all safe drinking water standards. 2. The water supply will be protected against emerging and potential water contaminants. Storm water runoff will be managed in an efficient and environmentally sensitive manner (d.o.2) Success Targets 1. City will implement and maintain all priority elements of the Brooklyn Center Local Water Management Plan by 2012. • June 3, 2011 • 12 g i ' f °1 STATE OF MINNESOTA J - OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 500 (651} 296 -2551 (Voice) 525 PARK STREET. REBECCA OTTO SAINT PAUL, MN 55103 -2139 (651) 296-4755 (E (Fax) state.auditor @state.mn.us (E -mail) STATE AUDITOR 1- 800 - 627 -3529 (Relay Service) June 1, 2011 Dear City Clerk/Finance Officer /County Auditor: In 2010, the Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation. In February 2011, the Council released a standard set of ten performance measures for counties and ten performance measures for cities that will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected officials in determining the efficacy of counties and cities in providing services, and measure residents' opinions of those services. By February of 2012, the Council must create comprehensive performance measurement systems for cities and counties to implement in 2012. Cities and counties that choose to participate in the new standards measure program may be eligible for a reimbursement in LGA, and exemption from levy limits. Participation in the standard measures program by a city or a county is voluntary. Counties and cities that choose to participate in the standard measures program must officially adopt the corresponding 10 performance benchmarks developed by the Council, and implement them in X11. They will be required to communicate the results of the measures to their residents the following calendar year. A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2011 is eligible for a reimbursement of $0.14 per capita in local government aid, not to exceed $25,000 and is also exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect. In order to teceive the per capita reimbursement in 2011, and levy limit exemption for calendar year 2012, counties and cities must: ✓ File a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2011. This report will consist of a declaration approved by the city. council or county board stating that the city /c(ruiv,y has adopted the corresponding 10 performance measures developed by the Council. Annual reporting will be required by the cities and counties that participate in the program. By July 1 2012, cities and counties will be required to report to the OSA that they have adopted both the performance benchmarks, and the performance measure system released by the Council in February of 2012. A declaration will be required that the city /county has reported or will report the results for calendar 2011 of the 10 adopted measures to its residents before the end of calendar year 2012. To meet the reporting requirements for 2011, a copy of the declaration in a PDF format can be attached to an email and sent to gid @osa.state.mn.us. Beginning next year, the Office of the • State Auditor will be using the State Auditor's Form Entry System (SAFES) for the local performance measurement and improvement program reporting. An Equal Opportunity Employer J To view the 10 performance measures for voluntary adoption for both cities and counties, please • go to the Office of the State Auditor's website at www. auditor. state.mn.us and then in the middle of the home page under Meetings, click on Council on Local Results and Innovation, and then on Measurements. Please submit your declaration by July 1, 2011. There will be no extensions for the reporting deadline. If you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 297 -3682 or email me at Dave.Kazeck@osa.state.mn.us. Sincerely, David R. Kazeck, Supervisor Government Information Division Encl: Legislation for new program • 6 An Equal Opportunity Employer 6.91 LOCAL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING. Subdivision 1.Reports of local performance measures. (a) A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program must report its . results to its citizens annually through publication, direct mailing, posting on the jurisdiction's Web site, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed. (b) Each year, jurisdictions participating in the local performance measurement and improvement program must file a report with the state auditor by July 1, in a form prescribed by the auditor. All reports must include a declaration that the jurisdiction has complied with, or will have complied with by the end of the year, the requirement in paragraph (a). For jurisdictions participating in the standard measures program, the report shall consist of the jurisdiction's results for the standard set of erformance measures under section 6.90 subdivision 2 p aragraph . In 2012 ' p a , () > urisdictions J participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program must submit a resolution approved by its local governing body indicating that it either has implemented or is in the process of implementing a local performance measurement system that meets the minimum standards specified by the council under section 6.90, subdivision 2 , paragraph (b). In 2013 and thereafter, jurisdictions participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program must submit a statement approved by its local governing body affirming that it has implemented a local performance measurement system that meets the minimum standards specified by the council under section 6.90_ subdivision 2. paragraph (b). Subd. 2.Benefits of participation. (a) A county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2011 is: (1) eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000 for any government entity; and (2) exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2012, if levy limits are in effect. • b An coup or city that. elect O y county ty s to participate in the standard measures program for 2012 is eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000 for any government entity. Any jurisdiction participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program is exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in 2013 if levy limits are in effect. (c) Any county or city that elects to participate in the standard measures program for 2013 or any year thereafter is eligible for per capita reimbursement of $0.14 per capita, but not to exceed $25,000. for any government entity. Any jurisdiction participating in the comprehensive performance measurement program for 2013 or any year thereafter is exempt from levy limits under sections 275.70 to 275.74 for taxes payable in the following year, if levy limits are in effect. Subd. 3.Certification of participation. (a) The state auditor shall certify to the commissioner of revenue by August 1 of each year the counties and cities that are participating in the standard measures program and the comprehensive performance measurement program. (b) The commissioner of revenue shall make per capita aid payments under this section on the second payment date specified in section 477A.015. in the same year that the measurements were reported. (c) The commissioner of revenue shall notify each county and city that is entitled to exemption . from levy limits by August 10 of each levy year. An Equal Opportunity Employer Curt Boganey From: Dave Kazeck [Dave.Kazeck @osa. state. mn.us] • Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 2:54 PM To: Curt Boganey Cc: Rebecca Otto Subject: Re: Performance Measures Good Afternoon, After reviewing your report on performance measures, the Office of the State Auditor confirms that your performance measurement system meets the requirements. We are encouraged to see cities like Brooklyn Center implementing performance measurement systems. Dave David R. Kazeck, Supervisor Government Information Division Office of the State Auditor Phone: 651.297.3682 Fax: 651.282.2391 Email: Dave.Kazeck(@osa.state.mn.us >>> Curt Boganey < cboganey(@ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us 6/1/2011 12:18 PM >>> Hello Dave, I greatly appreciate the efforts of the State Auditor and Council on Local Results and • Innovation. I believe the development of performance measurement is a very important step forward. I have attached the performance measures and results for 2010 as adopted by the Brooklyn Center City Council. We have been developing and refining this program for several years. Annually we report the results of these measures to our Citizens. We believe these measures best reflect the needs and strategic goals of our citizens. The adoption of the State Measures would be duplicative in some cases and of less utility in other cases. I hope when you review our measures you will agree that the City of Brooklyn Center has exceeded the expectations of the Council and our measures are a worthy substitute. Please let me know if this approach is an acceptable substitute for the prescribed 10 State measures. Your concurrence will be greatly appreciated. Cornelius Boganey ICMA CM City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 763 -569 -3303 Caution: This e-mail may contain CONFIDENTIAL information or information protected by state or federal law. If you have received this e -mail by mistake, please do not read, distribute, • or reproduce it (including any attachments). Please notify us immediately by return e-mail, and then delete it from your system. Thank you. i Curt Boganey om: Dave Kazeck [Dave.Kazeck @osa. state. mn.us] nt: Thursday, June 02, 2011 3:18 PM o: Curt Boganey Subject: RE: Performance Measures Hello, Just a reminder, you will still need to file a declaration. Dave >>> Curt Boganey < cboganev (@ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us 6/2/2011 3:13 PM >>> Hello Dave, Thank you very much. We will submit the updated 2011 version of these measures in response to the requirements of Minnesota 6.91. Please let me know if you have questions. Cornelius Boganey ICMA CM City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 763 - 569 -3303 . - - -- Original Message---- - From: Dave Kazeck fmailto :Dave.Kazeck(@osa.state.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 2:54 PM To: Curt Boganey Cc: Rebecca Otto Subject: Re: Performance Measures Good Afternoon, After reviewing your report on performance measures, the Office of the State Auditor confirms that your performance measurement system meets the requirements. We are encouraged to see cities like Brooklyn Center implementing performance measurement systems. Dave David R. Kazeck, Supervisor Government Information Division Office of the State Auditor Phone: 651.297.3682 Fax: 651.282.2391 Email: Dave.Kazeck(@osa.state.mn.us >>> Curt Boganey < cboganey(@ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us 6/1/2011 12:18 PM »> O ello Dave, 1 • The Council on Local Results and Innovation 2011 Lelzislative Report February 14, 2011 • • February 14, 2011 To the Property and Local Sales Tax Division of the House of Representatives, Taxes Committee and the Taxes Division on Property Taxes of the Senate Tax Committee, Per the requirements of 2010 Minnesota Laws Chapter 389, Article 2, Sections l and 2, the Council on Local Results and Innovation is submitting its recommended "... standard set of approximately ten performance measures for counties and ten performance measures for cities that will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected officials in determining the efficacy of counties and cities in providing services, and measure residents' opinion of those services." The recommended model performance measures are attached. Local government and public feedback was solicited on the proposed benchmarks. The members of the Council include: • Patricia Coldwell, Association of Minnesota Counties • John Gunyou, City of Minnetonka • Mark Hintermeyer, City of Moorhead • Jay Kiedrowski, Humphrey School, University of Minnesota • Katie Nerem, Blue Earth County • Rebecca Otto, Minnesota State Auditor . Jay Stroebel, City of Minneapolis • Matt Stemwedel, City of Woodbury • Wendy Underwood, City of St. Paul • Tim Walsh, Scott County • Ben Woessner, City of Pelican Rapids The Council received no funding to conduct their work. Meeting minutes were taken by volunteers, and the Office of the State Auditor posted all meeting materials and meeting dates on the Office of the State Auditor website. All meetings were open to the public. The Council sees value in having all counties and cities in Minnesota develop performance measures that they use to manage their jurisdictions and having results of those performance measures shared with citizens and property tax payers. Our recommended performance measures should be considered examples to assist counties and cities in developing their own performance measures. The Council was concerned about the misuse of these performance measures by the legislature or others in the appropriation of funds or for comparisons among counties and cities. The general performance measures recommended are simply inadequate for those purposes. The Council on Local Results and Innovation is proceeding to meet the additional requirements of the statute, which is to "develop recommended minimum standards for comprehensive performance measurement systems by February 15, 2012." We interpret "performance • measurement system" to mean more broadly a performance management system that uses performance measures to manage counties and cities. Representatives of the Council would welcome the opportunity to discuss the Council's work, our recommended model performance measures, and our concerns about the use of these measures. Sincerely, Jay Kiedrowski, Chair Minnesota Council on Local Results and Innovation Cc: House Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader Attached: Model Performance Measures for Counties, Model Performance Measures for Cities • • • Model Performance Measures for Counties The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for counties, with alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for consideration by local county officials. Public Safety: 1. Part I and II crime rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Part 1 crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery /counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family /children crime, D. U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses.) OR Citizen's rating of safety in their county. (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat safe, very unsafe) Output Measure: Deputy Response Time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first • officer on scene) Probation /Corrections: 2. Percent of adult offenders with a new felony conviction within 3 years of discharge Public Works: 3. Hours to plow complete system during a snow event 4. Average county pavement condition rating OR Citizen's rating of the road conditions in their county. (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly good condition, many bad spots) (Under legislation passed in 2009 (Minn. Stat. § 402A.15), counties are engaged with the Department of Human Services and community organizations in a three -year process to develop comprehensive performance measures across all areas of human services, for which all counties will be held accountable. The following measures here are intended to serve as `place - holders', not to replace the more comprehensive measures scheduled to be completed by December 2012.) • Public Health • 5. Life Expectancy generally and by sex and race OR Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system rating (Citizen Survey: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor) Social Services 6. Workforce participation. rate among MFIP and DWP recipients 7. Percentage of children where there is a recurrence of maltreatment within 12 months following an intervention Taxation: - 8. Level of assessment ratio (ff the median ratio falls between 90% and 105 %, the level of assessment is determined to be acceptable.) Elections: 9. Accuracy of post- election audit (Percentage of ballots counted accurately) • Veterans' Services: Output Measure: Percent of veterans surveyed who said their questions were answered when seeking benefit information from their County Veterans' Office Parks: 10., Citizens' rating of the quality of county parks, recreational programs, and /or facilities. (Citizen survey: excellent, good, fair poor) Library: 11. Number of annual visits per 1,000 residents • Model Performance Measures for Cities • The following are the recommended model measures of performance outcomes for cities, with alternatives provided in some cases. Key output measures are also suggested for consideration by local city officials. General: I. Rating of the overall quality of services provided by your city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) 2. Percent change in the taxable property market value 3. Citizens' rating of the overall appearance of the city (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Police Services: 4. Part I and II crime rates (Submit data as reported by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Part 1 crimes include murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes include other assaults, forgery /counterfeiting, embezzlement, stolen property, vandalism, weapons, prostitution, other sex offenses, narcotics, gambling, family /children crime, D. U.I., liquor laws, disorderly conduct, and other offenses) OR Citizens' rating of safety in their community (Citizen Survey: very safe, somewhat safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe) Output Measure: Police response time (Time it takes on top priority calls from dispatch to the first officer on scene) Fire Services: 5. Insurance industry rating of fire services (The Insurance Service Office (ISO) issues ratings to Fire Departments throughout the country for the effectiveness of their fare protection services and equipment to protect their community. The ISO rating is a numerical grading system and is one of the primary elements used by the insurance industry to develop premium rates for residential and commercial businesses. ISO analyzes data using a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) and then assigns a . Public Protection Classification from I to 10. Class I generally represents superior property fire protection and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria.) • OR Citizens' rating of the quality of fire protection services (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) • Output Measure: Fire response time (Time it takes from dispatch to apparatus on scene for calls that are dispatched as a possible fire), Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response time (if applicable) (Time it takes from dispatch to arrival of EMS) Streets 6. Average city street pavement condition rating (Provide average rating and the rating system program /type. Example: 70 rating on the Pavement Condition Index (PQ) OR Citizens' rating of the road condition in their city (Citizen Survey: good condition, mostly good condition, many bad spots) 7. Citizens' rating the quality of snowplowing on city streets (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Water • 8. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city water supply (centrally- provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Operating cost per 1,000,000 gallons of water pumped /produced (centrally- provided system) (Actual operating expense for water utility / (total gallons pumped 11, 000, 000)) Sanitary Sewer 9. Citizens' rating of the dependability and quality of city sanitary sewer service (centrally provided system) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) Output Measure: Number of sewer blockages on city system per 100 connections (centrally provided system) (Number of sewer blockages on city system reported by sewer utility (population/100)) Parks and Recreation: 10. Citizens rating of the quality of city recreational programs and facilities (parks, trails, park buildings) (Citizen Survey: excellent, good, fair, poor) City Council Agenda Item No. 7a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 2011 • TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Susan Shogren Smith for Her Dedicated Public Service on the Financial Commission Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Susan Shogren Smith for Her Dedicated Public Service on the Financial Commission. Background: Susan Shogren Smith served on the Financial Commission from January 26, 2004, through May 23, 2011. Mayor Willson has requested that residents be recognized for their service on commissions by Council Resolution. Budget Issues: • There are no budget issues to consider. • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and • moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF SUSAN SHOGREN SMITH FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE FINANCIAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, Susan Shogren Smith served on the Financial Commission from January 26, 2004, through May 23, 2011; and WHEREAS, she has made significant contributions as a member of the Financial Commission, including evaluating and developing fiscal policies, fiscal procedures, Mayor and Council Member total compensation, and budgetary and capital matters; and WHEREAS, her leadership and expertise have been greatly appreciated by the Financial Commission; and WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that her service to the community should be • recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Susan Shogren Smith is hereby recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center, and this resolution serves as a visible and lasting expression of gratitude for the leadership and service she has rendered to the citizens of Brooklyn Center. June 13, 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • p • City Council Agenda Item No. 7b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 201 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Kevin Benner, Chief of Police' SUBJECT: Acceptance of CenterPoint Energy 2011 Grant Contribution Recommendation: It is recommended that Council recognize by resolution the acceptance of a charitable contribution grant from CenterPoint Energy in the amount of $2,500 for the matching fluid purchase of Automated External Defibrillators (AED's) for use in the Patrol Division. Background: An Automated External Defibrillators (AED's) is a portable device that automatically diagnoses potentially life threatening cardiac arrhythmias, ventricular fibrillation in a patient and is able to treat therri through defibrillation. Our First Responders. have used these devices many times in the field which have successfully brought people back to life. Our current fleet of AED's are seven years old and the money provided by CenterPoint Energy will allow us to purchase five devices. • On May 6, 2011, CenterPoint Energy awarded the Brooklyn Center Police Department with a grunt in the amount of $2,500 to be used for the purchase of Automated External Def"ibrillatars {AED'`s }. . At the June 13, 2011 City Council meeting, a representative from CenterPoint Energy will be in attendance to present the award to the City. Budget Issues; There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will ensure a safe and secure community Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources • Mission;. Ensuring an attractive, clears, safe conutuatity that enhances the pailly of life arul preserves'the public Must Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM CENTER-POINT ENERGY FOR A $2,500 GRANT TO BE USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF AUTOMATED EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATORS (AED's) financial WHEREAS CenterPoint Energy has established programs rams to offer f assistance in the form of a grant to qualified participants; and WHEREAS, CenterPoint Energy selected Brooklyn Center to receive a $2,500 grant to be used towards the purchase of Automated External Defibrillators (AED's); and WHEREAS, the AED equipment is crucial to saving people's lives when they are experiencing cardiac arrhythmias and ventricular fibrillation; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of this donation and commends CenterPoint Energy in making this funding possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. Acknowledges this donation with gratitude. • June 13, 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • City Council Agenda Item No. 7c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Lee Gatlin, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Acceptance of 2011 Fireman's Fund Grant Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council recognizes by resolution the acceptance of a charitable contribution in the form of a grant from the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company with support from RJF, A Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC Company that purchased a Thermal Imaging Camera in the amount of$9,800.00 for the Brooklyn Center Fire Department Background: The Brooklyn Center Fire Department has been seeking funding to replace one or both of its' thermal cameras. A thermal imaging camera is a type of camera used in firefighting. Such cameras allow firefighters to see areas of heat through smoke, darkness, or heat-permeable barriers. These cameras are also used to locate victims, including firefighters who are lost or trapped in low visibility environments. On April 20, 2011, the Brooklyn Center Fire Department took possession of a Thermal Imaging Camera purchased through the Fireman's Fund Grant. Members of the Fireman's Fund group would like to make a formal presentation of the funds to the fire department at the council meeting. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: 1: We will ensure a safe and secure community Alission:Disuritt;art attractive,dealt,safe cortvtt fill ity that elthattces the quality of life acid preserve's the public,trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE$9,800 GRANT FROM THE FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY TO BE USED TO PURCHASE A THERMAL IMAGING CAMERA WHEREAS,Fireman's Fund Insurance Company has established a program to offer financial assistance in the form of a grant to qualified participants; and WHEREAS, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and RJF,A Marsh&McLennan Agency LLC Company,selected the Brooklyn Center Fire Department to receive a$9,800 grant to be used to purchase a Thermal Imaging Camera; and WHEREAS, the camera is crucial for locating persons or objects in a smoke-filled environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the grant and commends the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and RJF, A Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC Company, in making this funding possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota: 1. Acknowledges this grant with gratitude. June 13 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member i and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • City Council Agenda Item No. 9a i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: June 7, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 (Luther Companies, LLLP) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the Resolution Regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 Submitted by Linda McGinty or the Luther C LLLP for Prelimina Plat/Subdivision tY P �'Y approval. Background: On May 26, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of the Luther Companies, LLLP for Preliminary Plat/Subdivision approval of the property located at 4011, 4101, and 4215 69 Ave N, 6700 and 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard, to be known as Bri Mar Second Addition. At that time, the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -10, • a resolution recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat, subject to certain findings and conditions. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013, an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents included in this review. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 2. We will aggressively proceed with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 4146 4100 4014 3900 69TH AVE N 89TH AVE N 4215 4101 4011 4007 4001 3939 I 6800 � F L i BETH AVE N 88TH AVE N 't b 6700 4301 !: • �� 6727 6726 6719 6720 { �o m { 8715 M 6714 2' 6707 6706 6700 8 Magrcaeaeel iOArcfi.1S. CayA {C1 tL1Cis[353115 0 241ff Planning Application No. 2011 -013 Preliminary Plat of Bri Mar Second Addition • Application Filed: May 6, 2011 City Council Action Must Take Action by: July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2011 -013 Applicant: The Luther Company LLLP Location: 6700 and 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plan (Plat) Approval of Bri -Mar 2nd Addition (Luther Brookdale Honda and Luther Toyota City dealerships) INTRODUCTION The Luther Company is requesting preliminary and final plat approval of a proposed Bri Mar 2nd Addition, which essentially replats five (5) parcels into three separate lots (see attachment). This request conforms with the previously approved planned unit development (PUD) of this site in 2008. A public hearing has been scheduled for this preliminary plat and notice of the Planning Commission's consideration has been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. • BACKGROUND On July 17, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the original PUD, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -005, which recommended the rezoning of the five (5) parcels owned by Luther Auto from C -2 Commerce and R -3 Multiple Family to PUD /C -2 Planned Unit Development/Commerce. This PUD also considered the overall development plan of the site., which illustrated an original layout of the two dealership sites. On July 28, 2008, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval by adopting Resolution No. 2008 -81, which subsequently approved the 2008 PUD and development plan. At this same meeting, the City Council also approved Planning Application No. 2008 -004, which was the original Preliminary Plat of Bri Mar 2 Addition. Plat Revisions The original Bri Mar 2 nd plat considered the platting of the original Bri Mar Addition along with the two residential properties located at 4101 and 4011 69 Avenue North. The original plat proposed the creation of two new lots of 6.91 acres (Honda) and 8.32 acres (Toyota) respectively. The former Pilgrim site would be left in its original Lot 1, Block 1 Chrysler Realty Addition. • PC 05 -26 -11 Page 1 The new 16.69 acre Bri Mar 2 Addition now provides the following: .. • Lot 1 Block 1 Bri Mar 2nd is proposed for 54,860 sq. ft., or 1.26 acres; • Lot 2, Block 1 (Brookdale Honda site — 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard) is proposed for 312,770 sq. ft., or 7.18 acres; and • Lot 3, Block 1 Bri Mar 2 (Toyota City site — 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard) is proposed for 350,130 sq. ft., or 8.04 acres. The proposed Lot 1 is still being left separate under this plat in order for Luther Auto to keep the remaining (and ongoing) site clean-up issues separate from the other two dealership lots. Once Luther receives final approval or sign -off from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on this Lot 1, they will combine it with or into the Honda (Lot 2) site, creating a total lot or combined area of 8.44 acres. A change in this 2011 plat from the 2008 plat is the lot line separating the two dealership parcels. The original and the new still illustrate the same jog inside the area immediately east of the access at 60' Avenue/Brooklyn Blvd. intersection. This jog however, is slightly closer to the access than the 2008 plat. The lot line also jogged off near the its tie -in with the most easterly property boundaries; however, this jog is more noticeable on the 2011 plat than the 2008 plat. (Please not the thinner line thatjogs easterly and lies over the northeasterly corner of the Toyota building is the former lot boundary.) • Another significant change in this updated plat is the "clipped" corner of proposed Lotl, which was made to accommodate the new Honda building shifting slightly to the north. From an overall planning perspective, this revision to the corner of this lot does not take away from the overall intent and spirit of the 2008 plat, and Staff does not have any concerns or objections to this lot line change or replat. RECOMMENDATION The City Engineer has also provided an updated review memorandum dated May 20, 2011 and is attached as part of this Planning Information Sheet. A critical element of their review was the applicant's submittal of a traffic study to determine the access points and other traffic related issues, which, is scheduled to be completed by June 13, 2011. The plat has been submitted to Hennepin County and MnDOT for their review and must be contingent upon any conditions recommended by both agencies. This submitted plat is being recommended for approved based on similar conditions noted under Planning Application No. 2008 -004, which comprehended the original preliminary plat of Bri Mar 2 Addition: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. • PC 05 -26 -11 Page 2 • 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon the determination by the City Council that this plat is consistent with and/or conforms to the original planned unit development approved under Planning Application No. 2008 -005, on July 28, 2008. 4. Appropriate cross access and cross parking agreements and a dedication binding Lot 1, Block 1, Chrysler Realty Addition to the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Bri Mar 2 " Addition, as approved by the City Attorney shall be developed and filed with the titles to the property. 5. The applicant shall provide the city with an executed copy of shared access easement between the proposed Lots 1 and 2, Bri Mar 2 "d Addition prior to final plat approval to be filed with the titles to the properties. 6. The applicant shall execute all easements required by the City Engineer for drainage and utility purposes prior to final plat approval. 7. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor that the existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard does not encroach into the boundaries of the proposed Lots 1 and 2 or provide the appropriate sidewalk easement dedication along with the final plat. • • PC 05 -26 -11 Page 3 MEMORANDUM • DATE: May 20, 2011 TO: Tim`Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor SUBJECT: Public Works Preliminary Plan Review— Bri Mar 2 nd Addition, Luther Brookdale Honda and Toyota City Public Works Department staff reviewed the Preliminary Plan submittal dated May 5, 2011, for the proposed Bri Mar 2nd Addition and have the following comments: Easements, Agreements and Plat: 1. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must.be provided to the City Attorney for review at the time of the final plat application (within 30 days of release of the final plat). 2. A development agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. • 3. An overall easement agreement is required that will provide the City accessibility to all private utilities and storm drainage areas to inspect and enforce proper utility service and maintenance for the entire site. This easement agreement includes private inspection, maintenance and reporting responsibilities and must be executed prior to issuance of building occupancy. 4. Cross access, parking and utility agreements are required between all necessary parcels. 5. The proposed plat is located adjacent to Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) highway right -of -way and Hennepin County right -of -way. Minnesota Statutes require that the City submit the plat to the Department of Transportation and Hennepin County for written comments and recommendations. All Mn/DOT and Hennepin County comments will be conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans with Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications and other private utility companies. Easements necessary to provide utility service to the proposed site development shall be dedicated to the public for public use with the final plat. 7. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing easements, which must be vacated as part of the subdivision and site redevelopment process. 8. Private site appurtenances (e.g. light poles, signs, etc.) must not encroach on public easement areas. For appurtenances that provide adequate setback and will not have any direct impact on the public elements within the easement area as approved by the City, an • encroachment agreement is required for any element that is allowed and agreed to encroach in those easement areas. Preliminary Plan Review Memo — Bri Mar 2nd Addition Page 2 of 3 May 20, 2011 • General Items: 9. Provide the City with a traffic study including the signal systems at 68 and 69 Avenues and all proposed access points. Access and other traffic issues will further be identified and addressed upon completion of the traffic study. Items may include addition of right turn lanes and other such traffic safety and/or operational elements. 10. Combine the two existing access driveways into a single right - in/right -out only access. Location of this access must be located easterly of the existing median break to eliminate the potential drivers turning left. 11. Shift northeasterly access further to the east or extend the 69 Avenue median nose. 12. Revise the main entrance at 68 th Avenue to include longer turn/throu h lanes that g g accommodates longer vehicle stacking distances. The geometric improvements must be coordinated with the existing signal system design and/or redesigned accordingly. Dependent on the results of the traffic study, the lane configuration should be a right turn, thru -left lane and entrance lane. 13. The main entrance at to lane help avoid 8 Avenue should line u with an internal drive a e to 6 v p p internal queuing issues that could back out onto the County roadway. 14. The southerly access must line up with the internal drive aisle, minimizing the skew. This access throat length should be increased in distance by closing the access to the first drive aisle. 15. Revise the plan to include additional infiltration /abstraction/filtration facilities. 16. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. The City's standard details must be included in the final site plans. 17. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is required. All SWPPP BMPs must be installed prior to any disturbance of the property. 18. The site is required to be irrigated. Irrigation plans are required and must be submitted for approval. 19. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures, and provide certified record drawings for any associated private and/or public improvements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 20. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer's design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer's immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as- built drawings. 21. Provide storm water hydrology and hydraulic computations and mapping. • Permitting: 22. Minnesota Department of Health permit is required for watermain installation. Preliminary Plan Review Memo — Bri Mar 2nd Addition Page 3 of 3 May 20, 2011 23. MPCA sanitary sewer permit is required.. • 24. MPCA NPDES permit is required. 25. Hennepin County access permit is required. 26. A Mn/DOT permit is required for drainage to and work within Mn/DOT Right of way. 27. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) plan review and approval are required. Sheet C -301 28. Move car display pad in the southwest corner out of the City drainage and utility easement. 29. Car displays must not encroach into intersection sight lines. 30. The perimeter shall entirely consist of 136 -12 curb and gutter. Sheet C -401 31. New gate valves must be installed at all City connections. 32. Provide pretreatment before all storm water treatment facilities and/or prior to connections to the City's storm water system. 33. All watermain connections to public City watermain must be inspected by City personnel. 34. All sanitary sewer connections to City main will be inspected by City personnel. 35. All utilities must be disconnected before building demolition begins. 36. Install manhole at the exterior of both buildings for the sanitary sewer lines. 37. Loop the watermain between the two buildings. • Sheet C -501 38. Revise the lot line in the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 to provide 2 feet of clearance with the existing sidewalk or dedicate as right of way. 39. Join Lot 1, Block 1 or tax combine to Lot 2, Block 2. 40. The final plat shall include 10 -ft wide drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the plat and along internal property lines. The final plat shall also include a drainage and utility easement extending over the boundary of the existing signal and utility easement per Document Nos. 3457153, Document No. 3457154 and Document 345158, and/or as additionally needed to encompass the traffic signal system. 41. Provide the City with sidewalk easement along 69 Avenue to allow 2 foot clear zone of the existing walk. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The preliminary plan (site plan and preliminary plat) must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plat .and final site plans may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading and geometric design as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. • • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -10 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -013, A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF BRI MAR 2 D ADDITION SUBMITTED BY THE LUTHER COMPANIES LLLP WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2012 -013 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of The Luther Company, LLLP requests approval of a Preliminary Plat approval of a subdivision to be title ri 2nd h is re plat of five contiguous rr d >3 Mar Addition, which a r lots located on the easterly side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 1 -94 and 69t Avenue North and addressed as 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard, 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4215 69' Avenue North, and 4101 69 th .Avenue 4011 69 Avenue North; an d WHEREAS, this plat is being requested to create three (3) separate lots for the benefit of a new Luther Brookdale Honda dealership and new Toyota City of Brooklyn Center dealership; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 26, 2011 at which time a staff report and public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of Bri Mar 2 °d Addition were received; and WHEREAS, the review of this preliminary plat submitted with Planning Application No. 2011 -012, even with the minor lot line revisions is in general conformance with the original plat approved by the City Council on July 28, 2008 in acceptance of Planning Application No. 2008 -004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined these plat revisions are not significant enough or diminishes the original intent and desired effect in the platting of this redevelopment site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during the review of this plat application that the building and site modifications previously approved under the 2008 Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan as comprehended under the original Planning Application No. 2008 -005, and adopted by the City Council under Res. No. 2008 -81, is in substantial compliance and conformity with this approved PUD and overall development plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011 -013 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of The Luther Company, LLLP be approved based upon • the following considerations: i 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. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon those condtions and consideratins approved under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 and memorialized in adopted City Council Resolotion No. 2008 -81, dated July 28, 2008. 4. Appropriate cross access and cross parking agreements and a dedication binding Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Bri Mar 2nd Addition, and as approved by the City Atttorney shall be developed and filed with the titles to the property. 5. The applicant shall provide the city with an executed copy of shared access easement between the proposed Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Bri Mar 2nd Addition prior to final plat approval to be filed with the titles to the properties. 6. • The applicant shall execute, all easements required by the City Engineer for drainage and utility purposes prior to final plat approval. 7. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor that the existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard does not encroach into the boundaries of the proposed Lots l and 2 or provide the appropriate sidewalk easement dedication along with the final plat. • 8. Building permits for construction of any of the buildings comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 shall not be issued until the plat has been given final approval b the City Council and filed with . Hennepin Count PP Y t3' p Y Date Chair ATTEST Secretary 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 Chair , Commissioners and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • 2 . ° Mr. Boganey noted before Council tonight is approval of the first reading of the ordinance and setting the second reading and public hearing for August 25; 2008. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing on August 25, 2008, of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification ' of Certain Land (Westerly of Brooklyn Boulevard Between I -94 and 68 Avenue North). Motion passed unanimously. 10b. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008 -04 SUBMITTED BY THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO COMBINE AND DIVIDE FOUR EXISTING LOTS INTO TWO LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN I -94 AND 69 AVENUE FOR THE CREATION OF TWO NEW AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS JULY 17 2008, MEETING Mr. Warren stated the Planning Commission recommended approval at its meeting of July 17, 2008, subject to nine conditions. He discussed the recommended conditions, the ordinance, and responded to questions from the City Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve Planning • Commission Application No. 2008 -004 submitted by the Luther Company LLLP subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: 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. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005. 4. Appropriate cross access and cross parking agreements and a dedication binding Lot 1, Block 1, Chrysler Realty Addition to the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Bri Mar 2nd Addition, as approved by the City Attorney shall be developed and filed with the titles to the property. 5. The applicant 'shall provide the City .with an executed copy of shared access easement between the proposed Lots 1 and 2, Bri Mar 2nd Addition prior to final plat approval to be filed with the titles to the properties. 6. The applicant shall execute all easements required by the City Engineer for drainage and utility purposes prior to final plat approval. • 07/28/08 Downloaded from the City of Broo4 Center WebLink Repository May 25, 2011 MUM 7. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor that • the existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard does not encroach into the boundaries of the proposed Lots 1 and 2 or provide the appropriate sidewalk easement dedication along with the final plat. 8. Building permits for construction of any of the buildings comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 shall not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 9. The existing house at 4011 69th Avenue North shall be demolished or removed from the property and all utilities appropriately disconnected prior to final plat approval. Motion passed unanimously. 10c. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008-005 SUBMITTED BY THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM C -2 (COMMERCE) AND R -3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) TO PUD /C -2 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT /COMMERCE) AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS FOR TWO NEW AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS (HONDA AND TOYOTA) ON THE EAST SIDE OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN 1 -94 AND 69 AVENUE. THE • PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 'OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS JULY 17, 2008, MEETING. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -81 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008- 005 SUBMITTED BY THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP Mr. Warren stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its July 17, 2008, meeting, subject to 18 conditions including prohibition of using an outdoor paging system. He discussed the resolution and responded to questions from the City Council Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -81, Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -05, submitted by the Luther Company LLLP, and subject to conditions of the Planning Commission and addition of Condition 19 as stated by Attorney LeFevere. Motion passed unanimously. 2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (4011 AND 410169 AVENUE) 07/28/08 Downloaded from the City of Brooklyn Center Webl-ink Repository May 25, 2a71 03:30PM BRI MAR 2nd ADDITION Plat Modifications 2008 Plat vs. 2011 Plat - - w -- - - ( a� •• �c � � ax - ^. - t - v --- 1-1T. ------- -_ 1 yq r S \ ' � a .l' ✓� .. t 'i r ' _`� q , slurs d i7S�` Ust t HONDA `�,.:' - „ .ofii Fmm+wr ,_... y.l }_w• ' 'HONDA a LOT �� em ,� 4 • \ � � an Im sF , it x: ' . .`` ..•'' t • - ` < ✓ y '� t l - ��� � , �..' �,Y•1, � m� , •, t5F5C5FPCVIFiSId ! SLOT 3 ik is ACM z_ LOT 2 `i 4�' ' " °�¢euF �'``• `�' �a w ' G21 ACRTB 8s e0\ i a51,ryp S.F. � � � � :,�: ^s oR�ar.:>: . � ,.ac^axfR•s .:a•• rre ..� J ! \, P �� �L BRj MAR � � ATD .:s••fR :�: i . , l�l 1V1L''�Ct 21`IL �" �:,.,.�.n.•. ADDITION ppa s,�myn centerr \ I �. `J � • � � S S ".e, »v�ww�e..,,..',""".�» Deaknhi e,- W • � ' e° P �,� i 11 O L1l`i% /V /Ill O •� i ' II ° wrowra,°m.a°iu„sw,ro wrn" Lather °� °\w✓•" " +' °'°° Brookdale Honda Lather Toyota City 'HONDA I _ _ 52.2285F FOOTPFOB FM- 888.00 p � ' 01°° r s8w,r � a°eam I S09•lSIB'I x t I V�`jy >8.98 urt T ro 1 asnru swrw T J UNS f j ».. w• ..... L i � 1 Q CT &OTA O \ SIMGSFFOOTPO4T - . FFE•SGUO p . \mil I \ c� OLOT 3 1 SA AaM CITY SUB APRIL 5. MY TTAL `?VS .\ \ _ cr_n = = =__ _o_� � ❑o_s5c_ ' -t' = - -_ • � \t � \�g� , -r `�`` .i � 1 i , � w.r,.wvw rw EE -501 dnp. mmeBObw. Ca9aael.Tppm9. o' ' ' sa tuo /,:A'e's eecorcc:r+ ' I a^ae::.rxxs .TFC .:� r:,ax .w� I fl 3 I / wm txs:.,.ti/a e I R�T MAR ���(� BA ceA^.z••am.mroa ! I !� e �^ , RI 1r.lAR 2ND - - -. - - ADDITION b y center •. �! aeelonNpe °S a 1n,�w N _ q aw ww.rwwwa wx •. wrwa w • ° s 1 ^)/ A /A � A e YY// I u � •A araww m ur L I oueaft HONDA J " abaTm'�p 4 „W=GFF00TMUNT I _ J 898 B' LOT 1 °� \ a•3mo16 sa Qs i t \\ rt D TOYOTA a am WP00TFIx+r gZAp CrrY SUBMITTAL �.� \ \ \ _ ® ❑c>_'_n =� = __ =r__ _ _ _ _ J UNE 19.2008 L A N a 8 D R M T� 93 ACM 1 36M IF. n � For Y ¢ c:. nfo. /� � aJMBM>•Yt. "" tl 388.8 811.88 ��� e `� • ® rs Re@L�WART ZOOS rna.Rna'eeao\x. CdIeeMMTwab a � ,� Member Morey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -10 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -013, A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF BRI MAR 2� ADDITION SUBMITTED BY THE LUTHER COMPANIES LLLP WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of The Luther Company, LLLP requests approval of a Preliminary Plat approval of a subdivision to be titled Bri Mar 2 nd Addition, which is a r!Rlat of five contiguous lots located on the easterly side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69 Avenue North and addressed as 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard, 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4215 69 Avenue North, and 4101 69 Avenue, 4011 69 Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this plat is being requested to create three (3) separate lots for the benefit of a new Luther Brookdale Honda dealership and new Toyota City of Brooklyn Center dealership; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 26, 2011 at which time a staff report and public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of Bri Mar 2nd Addition were received; and . WHEREAS, the review of this preliminary plat submitted with Planning Application No. 2011 -013, even with the minor lot line revisions is in general conformance with the original plat approved by the City Council on July 28, 2008 in acceptance of Planning Application No. 2008 -004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined these plat revisions are not significant enough or diminishes the original intent and desired effect in the platting of this redevelopment site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during the review of this plat application that the building and site modifications previously approved under the 2008 Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan as comprehended under the original Planning Application No. 2008 -005, and adopted by the City Council under Res. No. 2008 -81, is in substantial compliance and conformity with this approved PUD and overall development plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011 -013 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of The Luther Company, LLLP be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. •. 1 . 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon those condtions and consideratins approved under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 and memorialized in adopted City Council Resolotion No. 2008 -81, dated July 28, 2008. 4. Appropriate cross access and cross parking agreements and a dedication binding Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Bri Mar 2nd Addition, and as approved by the City Atttorney shall be developed and filed with the titles to the property. 5. The applicant shall provide the city with an executed copy of shared access easement between the proposed Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Bri Mar 2n Addition prior to final plat approval to be filed with the titles to the properties. 6. The applicant shall execute all easements required by the City Engineer for drainage and utility purposes prior to final plat approval. 7. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor that the existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard does not encroach into the boundaries of the proposed Lots 1 and 2 or rovide the appropriate sidewalk easement dedication along p g with the final plat. • 8. Building permits for construction of any of the buildings comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 shall not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 1 d Date Chair kJ ATTEST: C Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Schonning and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof Chair Pro Tern Kuykendall, Commissioners Leino, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • 2 City Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. 2011- RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011-013, SUBMITTED BY LINDA MCGINTY FOR THE LUTHER COMPANIES, LLLP WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -013 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of The Luther Company, LLLP requests approval of a Preliminary Plat approval of a subdivision to be titled Bri Mar 2 nd Addition, which is a reglat of five contiguous lots located on the easterly side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69 Avenue North and addressed as 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard, 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4215 69 Avenue North, and 4101 69 Avenue, 4011 69 Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this plat is being requested to create three (3) separate lots for the benefit of a new Luther Brookdale Honda dealership and new Toyota City of Brooklyn Center dealership; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 26, 2011 at which time a staff report and public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of Bri Mar 2 nd Addition were received; and • WHEREAS, the review of this preliminary plat submitted with Planning Application No. 2011 -013, even with the minor lot line revisions is in general conformance with the original plat approved by the City Council on July 28, 2008 in acceptance of Planning Application No. 2008 -004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined these plat revisions are not significant enough or diminishes the original intent and desired effect in the platting of this redevelopment site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during the review of this plat application that the building and site modifications previously approved under the 2008 Planned Unit Development (PUD) plan as comprehended under the original Planning Application No. 2008 -005, and adopted by the City Council under Res. No. 2008 -81, is in substantial compliance and conformity with this approved PUD and overall development plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center recommended approval of Application No. 2011 -030 submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of Luther Companies LLLP by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -10 on May 26, 2011: and • 1 WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2011 -013 at its June 13, • 2011 meeting, considered the Preliminary Plat in light of all testimony received and the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2011 -013, submitted by Linda McGinty on behalf of Luther Companies LLLP be approved with 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. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon those condtions and considerations approved under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 and memorialized in adopted City Council Resolotion No. 2008 -81, dated July 28, 2008. 4. Appropriate cross access and cross parking agreements and a dedication binding Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Bri Mar 2nd Addition, and as approved by the City Atttorney shall be developed and filed with the titles to the property. 5. The applicant shall provide the city with an executed copy of shared access easement between the proposed Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of Bri Mar 2n Addition prior to final plat approval to be filed with the titles to the properties. 6. The applicant shall execute all easements required by the City Engineer for drainage and utility purposes prior to final plat approval. 7. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor that the. existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard does not encroach into the boundaries of the proposed Lots 1 and 2 or provide the appropriate sidewalk easement dedication along with the final plat. 8. Building permits for construction of any of the buildings comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 shall not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. Date Mayor ATTEST City Clerk • 2 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember 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. • 3 • 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 May 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Kuykendall at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Pro Tem Kara Kuykendall, Stan Leino, Rachel Morey, Carlos Morgan, Michael Parks, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development, Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Chair Sean Rahn was absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 12, 2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Leino to approve the minutes of the May 12, 2011 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Pro Tem Kuykendall explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. REVIEW OF THE 2008 APPROVED PUD PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION 2008 -005 HONDA AND TOYOTA DEALERSHIPS Mr. Eitel introduced the application and explained that on July 28, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008 -81, which approved the 2008 PUD and development plan. At the same time, the City Council also approved Planning Application No. 2008 -004, which was the original Preliminary Plat of Bri Mar 2 nd Addition. He added that the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard (Phase 2) is complete and the Phase 3 portion of the development involves minor adjustments to the 2008 PUD approval that do not trigger a major plan amendment as defined by the PUD Ordinance. Mr. Eitel pointed out that the plan being presented indicates a few changes to the site, however, access to the site remains the same, parking remains the same, the building was shifted to allow better flow on the site and better distribution of the parking stalls for the two dealerships. Commissioner Morgan arrived at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Parks arrived at 7:09 p.m. • 5 -26 -11 Page 1 Mr. Eitel provided an aerial photo with an overlay of the approved landscape plan, noting that • the grouping of trees at some locations within the 35 foot green space buffer would compliment the screening fence and provide a better buffer to the adjoining residential. He also described some desirable methods of landscaping that would provide a nice feature on the site for water runoff and temporary ponding. Mr. Eitel asked the Commission if they feel that the minor modifications to the approved plan requires an amendment to the approved PUD or if the plan previously approved is sufficient to move forward. ACTION TO CONFIRM THAT THE EXISTING PUD FOR PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008-005 IS CONSISTENT WITH APPROVED PLANS There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Leino to confirm that the existing PUD is consistent with current plans as approved under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Kuykendall, Commissioners Leino, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and adopted. Commissioner Parks stated that he was not at the meeting in 2008 and he did not vote to approve the PUD. He stated that he wants the record to show that he has an objection to the configuration of the back side of the property relative to the location of the trees and other landscaping. • APPLICATION NO. 2011-013 LINDA MCGINTY FOR THE LUTHER COMPANY LLC Chair Pro Tern Kuykendall introduced Application No. 2011 -013, a request from Linda McGinty for The Luther Company, LLC to consider a proposed Preliminary Plat approval to combine five existing parcels into three parcels for future redevelopment of the site (4011, 4101, 4215 69 Avenue North and 6700 and 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard). Mr. Benetti explained that the original Bri Mar 2nd plat considered the platting of the original Bri Mar Addition along with the two residential properties located at 4101 and 4011 69 Avenue North. The original plat proposed the creation of two new lots of 6.91 acres (Honda) and 8.32 acres (Toyota) respectively. The former Pilgrim site would be left in its original Lot 1, Block 1 Chrysler Realty Addition. The new 16.69 acre Bri Mar 2 nd Addition now provides the following: • Lot 1 Block 1 Bri Mar 2 nd is proposed for 54,860 sq. ft., or 1.26 acres; • Lot 2, Block 1 (Brookdale Honda site — 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard) is proposed for 312,770 sq. ft., or 7.18 acres; and • Lot 3, Block 1 Bri Mar 2"d (Toyota City site — 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard) is proposed for • 5 -26 -11 Page 2 • 350,130 sq. ft., or 8.04 acres. The proposed Lot l is still being left separate under this plat in order for Luther Auto to keep the remaining (and ongoing) site clean -up issues separate from the other two dealership lots. Once Luther receives final approval or sign -off from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on this Lot 1, they will combine it with or into the Honda (Lot 2) site, creating a total lot or combined area of 8.44 acres. Mr. Benetti added that a change in this 2011 plat from the 2008 plat is the lot line separating the two dealership parcels and the plan also shows the revised plat is the "clipped" corner of proposed Lot 1, which was made to accommodate the new Honda building shifting slightly to the north. He pointed out that this does not take away from the overall intent and spirit of the 2008 plat. Staff does not have any concerns or objections to this lot line change or replat. Commissioner Morgan asked for clarification on the separation of Lot 1. Mr. Benetti explained that the proposed Lot 1 will be kept separate to complete ongoing site clean-up issues and will be combined later with Lot 2 once the site is cleaned up. He added that the corner will be used for parking only. Commissioner Parks asked about the notation regarding B612 curbing. Mr. Benetti responded that the updated site plan indicates a more gentle curb line (B412) and the City Engineer noted that they would like to see the B612 curb and gutter which allows greater drainage on the site. He added that they would like to see the perimeters covered in B612 where drainage needs to be • captured better. Commissioner Parks stated that he is concerned with drainage on a site of this size with such a large parking lot and wanted to know how water would drain quickly and efficient. Mr. Benetti responded that there will be two underground infiltration systems on the site to handle water run -off. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011-013 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Leino to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -013, at 7:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Pro Tem Kuykendall called for comments from the public. Linda McGinty, 3701 Alabama Avenue So, St. Louis Park, representing The Luther Company introduced herself to the Commission. Commissioner Parks asked for an explanation regarding the curbing will be on the site. Ms. McGinty stated that the B612 will be around the perimeter of the site but B412 will be on the inside of the site to prevent damage to vehicles. 5 -26 -11 Page 3 Mr. Peter Beck, 3701 Alabama Avenue So, St. Louis Park, The Luther Company, responded that they prefer the B412 curb because today's cars are smaller and lower to the ground and the • smaller curb protects the cars. He added that if the Planning Commission wanted them to install more B612 curb on the site, they will do so, if the Watershed Commission and other requirements are met. Commissioner Leino asked what the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission requires? Mr. Eitel responded that a previous condition of the PUD approval states that the standard is that B612 curb and gutter will be installed in all parking and driving areas except where B412 is allowed in areas where drainage is not a factor in smaller defined areas. He added that the final approval will be made by the City Engineer and. the Shingle Creek Watershed District to assure that proper layout occurs on the site. Mr. Parks continued to express his concern with water and drainage on the site. Mr. Beck stated that all water that the site catches goes into a treatment facility under the site before it is released to the city's storm water retention ponds. Mr. Parks stated that he would like to see a more sustainable solution to the water issues that would be more eco friendly and renewable that would eliminate a man-made irrigation system. Mr. Beck stated that they will work with staff to do whatever they can to minimize the concerns. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on • Application No. 2011 -013. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Leino seconded by Commissioner Schonning to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -013, at 7:52 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -10 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Schonning to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -10 recommending Preliminary Plat approval of Bri Mar 2nd Addition (Luther Brookdale Honda and Luther Toyota dealerships.) Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem. Kuykendall, Commissioners Leino, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and adopted. Planning Commission Resolution 2011 -10 is made part of these minutes by attachment. • 5 -26 -11 Page 4 The Council will consider the application at its June 13, 2011 meeting. The applicant must be • present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Benetti explained that Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -014 had been withdrawn. He explained that a prior letter of understanding had been written up by staff that stated the property owners could utilize their property for their own overflow parking so there was no need to process the special use permit. A. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE CENTRAL COMMERCE ZONING DISTRICT. Mr. Benetti stated that the consultant for the Shingle Creek Development had previously been before the Commission to discuss architectural design guidelines and the architectural theme has been upgraded to address the concerns previously expressed by staff. Mr. Benetti displayed various building sketches which illustrated these changes to the architectural theme of the project and commented on the list of Class I and Class II construction materials which are part of the approved PUD agreement. He also explained that staff has reviewed what other cities require for architectural guidelines and he would like to begin a discussion with the Commission on the option of establishing • architectural guidelines for the Central Commerce Overlay District. There was discussion among the Commission Members regarding certain standards allowed by other cities and what standards should be required by Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Parks stated that one thing that should be included in the standards should be that materials used should be similar to other existing buildings in the area. Chair Pro Tem Kuykendall stated that the city could make the standards stricter and make any exceptions as a group. Commissioner Benetti stated that it is anticipated that an architect would read the established guidelines and it would be very clear to them what is expected by the City in a building design. Commissioner Parks added that he would like to see specific language that keeps the standards high. Commissioner Leino stated that he agrees with the other Commission Members and that we need a catch all category. Commissioner Morey stated that she feels that she likes what Plymouth states, "materials that have an attractive pattern, texture, and quality detailing" that gives some latitude to set the i s standards. 5 -26 -11 Page 5 Commissioner Schonning added that by including verbiage saying that something is "as • approved" also gives the catch all and latitude needed to meet approvals. Chair Pro Tem. Kuykendall stated that she would like staff to come back with some recommendations for architectural design guidelines for the Commission to review at a future meeting. Commissioner Parks stated that the image of Brooklyn Center is important and traffic along Hwy 100 is also important and he feels that displaying the back side of the development along Hwy will be a detriment. He added that if the Walmart development is not successful, people will go to Maple Grove. B. THIRD GENERATION WATERSHED PLAN REVIEW AND INPUT — COMMISSION VOLUNTEERS Mr. Benetti explained that the Council is requesting that members of Commission take part in the Third Generation Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management. He added that Commissioners Kuykendall and Parks have volunteered to serve and inquired if there were any others interested. He explained that they would serve individually or as a liaison of the Planning Commission and report back any information to the Planning Commission. OTHER BUSINESS: AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -07 Mr. Eitel explained that Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -07 had inadvertently recited . the PUD condition of site plan approval as a condition of the Site Plan Approval of the WalMart site development plans and asked for a motion from the Commission to make the change by amending the Resolution to read as follows: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that approval of a proposed Site and Building Plan and Phase I improvements as indicated in the Shingle Creek Crossing Conceptual Development Plans and as referenced under Application No. 2011 -009 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Landscape islands or similar breaks in the mid - points or various points throughout the Walmart dedicated parking lot shall be installed. 2. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed "recycling area ?' to the rear of the Walmart facility as part of the final site plan approvals. I The proposed dual drive -thru window layout with criss -cross access for the Walmart store shall be further reviewed to ensure adequate, safe operation. This drive -thru layout will be subject to final City review and approvals as a condition of the site plan approval. • 5 -26 -11 Page 6 . There was a motion by Commission Morey, seconded by Commissioner Leino to amend Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -07 as noted. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Kuykendall, Commissioners Leino, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and amended. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Morey to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass, Recording Secretary 5 -26 -11 Page 7 Background Information PUD and Site Plan Approval � • Application Filed: May 6, 2011 City Council Action Must Take Action by: July 5, 2011 Planning Commission Information Sheet Applicant: The Luther Company LLLP Location: 6700 and 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Review of the 2008 Approved Planned Unit Development Plans — Planning Application 2008 -05, Honda and Toyota Dealerships. Amendment to the Luther Auto 2008 PUD /C -2 Plan for the new Luther Brookdale Honda and Luther Toyota City dealerships INTRODUCTION The Luther Company is requesting confirmation that the following changes to the Development Plans of the 2008 C -2 PUD, as approved by City Council Resolution No. 2008 -81 are in substantial compliance plan with the approved plans as defined by the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 35 -355. Subdivision 5 -d: 1) The commercial buildings have been reduced from 109,798 sq.ft.to 106,058 sq.ft. a reduction of 3.4 %. 2) The Honda dealership building has been reduced in size from 53,277 s£ to 52,228 sq /ft, a reduction of 2 %. 3) The Toyota dealership building has been reduced from 56,521 s£ to 53,830 sq.ft. a reduction of 4.8 %. 4) The two dealership building have changed their footprint (overall shapes) and readjusted on their common lot. 5) Minor parking lot improvement modifications; and 6) .A parking setback adjoining the excess right of way adjoining the former Pilgrim Cleaners Lot has been reduced from 10 feet to BACKGROUND On July 17, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Luther Auto PUD for a Honda and Toyota Dealerships and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008- 002, which recommended the rezoning of the five (5) parcels owned by Luther Auto from C -2 Commerce and R -3 Multiple Family to PUD /C -2 Planned Unit Development/Commerce. This PUD also considered the overall development plan of the site, which included the site development plans for the Honda and Toyota Dealerships. On July 28, 2008, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission application and adopted Resolution No. 2008 -81, whereby approving the original 2008 PUD.and development plan. Market conditions and issues related to the Recession caused the applicant to delay the overall pp Y Page 1 5 -26 -11 schedules for the development, redevelopment, and renovations associated with the positioning • of several auto dealerships within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor: West side of Brooklyn Boulevard — a Chevrolet Dealership, a Buick - Pontiac -GMC dealership, existing Honda dealership, and the existing Mitsubishi/Mazda dealership. East side of Brooklyn Boulevard — a new Honda dealership and a new Toyota dealership In 2009, the applicant commenced renovation of the Chevrolet and Buick- Pontiac -GMC dealerships and completed construction during the fall of 2010. The applicant is now seeking the necessary approvals that would allow the following: - the demolition of the existing building at 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard (Lot 1, Block 1, Chrysler Realty Addition), - the issuance of building permits for the new construction for the Honda and Toyota Dealerships, and - Approval of the preliminary /final plat to adjust 'lot lines for positioning of the two dealership buildings. PUD APPROVAL — Resolution No. 2008 -81 Attached is a copy of the Resolution No. 2008- 81, the resolution which confirms that the proposed Honda and Toyota Dealerships provide for the reasonable use of the property and conform to the ordinance standards with the exception of the following modifications which • were approved as part of the City's approval of the PUD: 1. Allowing an automobile repair use that abuts residential zoned property; 2. Allowing two parcels that are under common ownership and proposed for common use and not requiring them to be replatted into a single lot at this time; 3. Allow a slight encroachment at the southwest corner of the Toyota site to allow a main display pad with a pergola and fence with a "Welcome to Brooklyn Center" ground message. 4. These modifications from the Zoning Ordinance standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved development plan. The resolution also includes the following conditions of approval: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements for both the Brookdale Dodge properties and the old Ryan Olds property. • 4. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas except for Page 2 5 -26 -11 • where the City Engineer may authorize a lesser standard such as B -412 curb and gutter in non - drainage areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building and building additions shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. . 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 12. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. No building permit will be issued for construction of the proposed buildings until the plat • comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -004 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement gr all be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C -2 underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 15. Modifications to allow a slight t e croachment into the 15 gh ft. green strip at the southwest corner of the Toyota site to allow a main display and "Welcome to Brooklyn Center" ground message is considered acceptable provided the display is properly maintained and may be modified or changed only with the approval of the City of Brooklyn Center. 16. The owner shall enter into cross access and parking agreements, as approved by the City Attorney, between the site addressed as 4215 69 Avenue North and 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard. Said easements shall be executed and filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. The plans shall be modified to acknowledge extension of underground irrigation to cover boulevard areas including the area at the northwest corner of the site that was once Pilgrim Cleaners. 18. The owner shall replat the proposed Honda property in accordance with Section 35 -540 once the environmental issues associated with it have been clarified. 19. There shall be no outdoor paging, announcing, or other amplified voice or music on the site. • Page 3 5 -26 -11 ANALYSIS OF REVISIONS (from the 2008 PUD) • The revised site /building plans reflect minor changes, which do not exceed the thresholds identified by the PUD provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as substantial compliance: - Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved, - The floor area has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent, - No building has been increased in the number of floors, - Open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and - Lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. As noted previously, the Honda dealership building has been reduced in size from 53,277 sq.ft. to 52,228 sq.ft. which reflects a decrease of 1,049 sf., or 2% reduction. The Toyota dealership building has been reduced from 56,521 sq.ft. to 53,830 sq.ft., which reflects a 2,691 sq.ftf. decrease or 4.8% reduction. The two buildings footprints have been shifted slightly to meet the design criteria of the dealership and do not affect the approved setbacks approved under the original 2008 PUD, which are 35 -foot front yard; 10 foot side yard; 25 -foot corner side yard; and 40 -foot rear yard setback. The parking lot layout and improvements have also been revised slightly, with minor island • changes and redesigns in conjunction with the building shifts. The one significant change here is the new divider island between the two dealerships, which provided better separation between these two users and will add additional means of 'landscaping their parking areas. It is the opinion of Staff that the changes are not substantial and that the revisions are consistent with the PUD approvals provided by the City Council in Resolution No. 2008081 RECOMMENDATION It is the opinion of Staff that the changes are not substantial and that the revisions are consistent with the PUD approvals provided by the City Council in Resolution No. 2008- 081. • Page 4 5 -26 -11 Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - 81 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008-005 SUBMITTED BY THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 submitted by the Luther Company LLLP proposes rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) and R -3 (Multiple Family Residence) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce� of five contiguous lots located on the easterly side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69 Avenue North and addressed as 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard, 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4215 69 Avenue North, and 4101 O Avenue, 401169' Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval of two new automobile dealerships (Honda and Toyota) on two adjacent lots; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on July 17, 2008 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning .and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2008 -005 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -03 on July 17, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2008 -005 at its July-28, 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008 -005 submitted by the Luther Company LLLP be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 2o0 _6, • I. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization - of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing automobile repair to abut residential property, not requiring two parcels that are under common ownership and proposed for common use to be required to be replatted into a single lot; and allow a slight encroachment at the southwest corner of the Toyota site to allow a main display pad with a pergola and fence with a "Welcome to Brooklyn Center" ground message. These modifications from the. Zoning Ordinance standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved development plan. 4. The Planned . Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this redevelopment can be considered an asset to the community. 6. Based upon the .above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008 -005 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements for both the Brookdale Dodge properties and the old Ryan Olds property. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -81 4. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas except for where the City Engineer may authorize a lesser standard such as B -412 curb and gutter in non - drainage areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building and building additions shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is -exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 12. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnegota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. No building permit will be issued for construction of the proposed buildings until the plat comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -004 has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 14. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall - acknowledge the specific modifications to the C -2 underlying zoning district as :y well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. RESOLUTION NQ. 2008 -81 15. Modifications to allow a slight encroachment into the 15 ft. green strip at the southwest corner of the Toyota site to allow a main display and "Welcome to Brooklyn Center" ground message is considered acceptable provided the display is properly maintained and may be modified or changed only with the approval of the City of Brooklyn Center. 16. The owner shall enter into cross access and parking agreements, as approved by the City Attorney, between the site addressed as 4215 69 Avenue North and 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard. Said easements shall be executed and filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits. 17. The plans shall be modified to acknowledge extension of underground irrigation to cover boulevard areas including the area at the northwest corner of the site that was once Pilgrim Cleaners. 18. The owner shall replat the proposed Honda property in accordance with Section 35- 540 once the environmental issues associated with it have been clarified. 19. There shall be no outdoor paging, announcing, or other amplified voice or music on the site. July 28, 2008 Date Mayor • ATTEST: � City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Mark Yelich and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof- Tim Willson, Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan; and Mark Yelich; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • 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 JULY 17, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Stan Leino, Michael Parks, and Tim Roche were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioners Rachel Lund and Della Young were absent and excused.` APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 15 2008 There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2008 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioners Leino abstained since he was not present at the meeting. . CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2008-003 — THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2008 -003, a request for rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD/ C -2 p ) and development p (Planned Unit Development /Commerce plan approval through � e th PUD process of three . p contiguous lots located on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 68 1 h Avenue for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing Chevrolet site and a new Buick, Pontiac, GMC Dealership. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 7 -17 -08 and the Director of Public Work's memo dated 7 -9 -08 for Application 2008 -003, attached). Mr. Warren explained that this proposal represents the first step in a major redevelopment by the Luther Company for both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69 Avenue. • 7 -17 -08 Page 1 APPLICATION NO. 2008-004 - THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2008 -004, a request from The Luther Company LLLP for preliminary plat approval to combine and divide four existing lots into two lots on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69 Avenue for the creation of two new automobile dealerships. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 7 -17 -08 and the Director of Public Works' memo dated 7 -9 -08 for Application No. 2008 -004, attached.) Mr. Warren explained that a similar preliminary plat application and Planned Unit Development proposal were submitted and approved in 2005 and 2006 by the City Council. The Luther Company, however, has recently acquired the property at 4011 69 Avenue North and wishes to incorporate this into their east side development. APPLICATION NO. 2008-005 — THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2008 -005, a request from the Luther Company LLLP for rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) and R -3 (Multiple Family Residence) to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and development plan approval through the PUD process for two new automobile dealerships (Honda and Toyota) on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I- 94 and 69 Avenue. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. • (See planning Commission Information Sheet dated 7 -17 -08 and the Director of Public Work's memo dated 7 -9 -08 for Application 2008 -005, attached). Mr. Warren explained that a similar Planned Unit Development Rezoning and development plan were submitted and approved in 2005 and 2006 by the City Council. The Luther Company, however, has recently acquired the property at 4011 69 Avenue North and also wishes to incorporate this into their east side redevelopment. This property contains a non - conforming single family home which is slated to be demolished. Chair Rahn asked for further clarification regarding the parcel not being combined with the others and what the situation is regarding clean up of the site. Mr. Warren responded that the building on the site will be removed and a finding from the PCA will be provided to confirm that the property has been cleaned up. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NOS. 2008-003,2008-004 AND 2008 -005 There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to open the public hearing on Application Nos. 2008 -003, 2008 -004 and 2008 -005, at 9:05 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. John Baker, (Architect for Baker. Associates) 150 So 5 th Street, Minneapolis, and Linda • McGinty (Director of Real Estate Development for the Luther Company), 3701 Alabama Ave 7 -17 -08 Page 2 So, St. Louis Park, introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Baker stated he would present an architectural overview of the proposal. Mr. Baker noted that it had been suggested by City staff to install B -612 curb and gutter on the entire site and he explained the reason for proposed use of B -412 curbs in the parking areas of the lots to is to eliminate damage to new vehicles caused by the higher curbs. Mr. Baker also stated they have a problem with the condition of approval regarding the provide requirement to ide under round irrigation Yn q a on on the comer at 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard. p g g ti He explained that it is a MPCA superfund site owned by Hennepin County and at this time does not appear to be maintained by anyone. Mr. Warren concurred that the parcel is not currently being maintained by anyone but this would be an opportune time to improve the look of the corner by extending irrigation. He stated that irrigation on the Luther property be situated such that it include the property in question without having to disrupt the site. He did not think there would be objections to such a proposal from the County or MPCA. Mr. Baker further gave an overview of the site layout and explained why they have proposed to place more landscaping on the site rather than along the perimeter. He added that by placing it along the interior of the site it would allow them to screen some parts of the building and storage areas to make it appear more attractive. Mr. Baker pointed out that these are manufactured prototype buildings that are required to include certain elements of design per the auto maker's requirements. He then compared the • current buildings on the sites and how it would compare after construction. Commissioner Leino addressed Ms. McGinty and Mr. Warren and asked if there would be any soil testing done on this site prior to construction. Mr. Warren responded that any soil issues found during construction would be taken care of. Ms. McGinty stated that there had been Phase I and Phase II testing prior to their purchasing the site and all issues have been addressed as well as removal of any underground hoists and tanks. She further stated that anything discovered during the course of construction, would be addressed. Commissioner Leino asked about the use of the public address system on the site and he stated he is aware of several neighborhood complaints regarding the level of noise. Mc. McGinty responded that she acknowledges the noise level can be excessive and they would make any alterations that the city require. would re Y q Commissioner Roche stated that he feels that the landscaping is a little thin along the property where it abuts the single family properties and suggested that additional Austrian Pines be planted in that area to provide better screening for the single family homes Mr. Matt Swenson, Landform Engineering, responded that the landscaping in that area was designed to allow better visibility from the freeway but they will revisit the area and consider . adding additional landscaping in that area. 7 -17 -08 Page 3 Commissioner Roche asked about the status of the old Iten Chevrolet sign. Ms. McGinty • responded that the sign will probably remain on site since it is an icon in the area and attracts attention. Commissioner Roche stated that he would like the applicant to consider extending the irrigation . system to maintain the landscaping that is on the corner of 69 and Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that it would be an amenity to have the corner well maintained. Mr. Baker responded that the property is owned by Hennepin County and it can be difficult to get their approval to install an irrigation system on the property. Ms. McGinty added that they would be willing to make contact with Hennepin County and discuss the subject with them. Commissioner Parks asked the applicant what their intent is with the fence along the east side of the property. Ms. McGinty responded that they were planning to leave the fence and it had recently been repaired. Mr. Swenson pointed out that the plans show that the fence would stay in place and be repaired where needed and where new fencing is needed, it would be installed. Commissioner Parks asked for the number of trees being demolished. He feels that something is lost if too many mature trees are taken down and replaced with new smaller trees. Mr. Warren stated that most of the trees coming down are along the northeast side to allow the applicant appropriate use of their property. Mr. Warren explained that by acquiring the single family homes, they have provided a new • buffer area that abuts the residential area to maintain the required distance between the commercial use and the single family homes along 69 Avenue North. Commissioner Roche added that it appears that some very mature trees may be coming down. He expressed his desire to see the applicant thicken up the buffer area to provide both screening and a sound barrier from the single family homes. Mr. Scott Hubbard, (owner of Atlantis Pools) 4321 68 Avenue, stated he's been at this location for 31 years and when he saw this plan he had some concerns: he didn't know that Luther did not own the property, he is confused about the right of refusal to purchase the property: since they are not owners, how can they control whether or not vehicles (transport trucks) are using the shared entrance he shares with the auto dealership; there are piles of dirt and dumpsters full of garbage; Luther bought the Osseo bus company business and the property is not maintained; what is happening to the old Honda dealership? It is not currently watered or maintained; will the property be maintained in the front as well as the back of the site ?; will the car dealerships be around in a couple years or will a different development be there? Commissioner Parks left the meeting at 9:58. Mr. Warren stated that he understands Mr. Hubbard's concerns but he would like to point out that his issues are not necessarily created by the applicant but rather were left on site from the • 7 -17 -08 Page 4 previous owner. He is confident that the applicant will maintain their property in a positive manner and that this proposal will be a positive addition to the area. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application Nos. 2008 -003, 2008 -004 and 2008 -005. There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to close the public hearing at 10:02 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2008-02 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -02 regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -003 submitted by The Luther Company LLLP. The motion passed unanimously. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Lein, and Roche. And the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution 2008 -02 is made part of these minutes by attachment. The Council will consider this application at its July 28, 2008 meeting. The applicant must be • present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that they be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2008-004 - THE LUTHER COMPANY LLLP There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Leino, to recommend to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2008 -004, submitted by The Luther Company LLLP for Preliminary Plat approval to combine and divide four existing lots into two lots on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69t` Avenue for the creation of two new automobile dealerships 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. Approval of this preliminary plat is contingent upon approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005. 4. Appropriate cross access and cross parking agreements and a dedication binding Lot 1, Block 1, Chrysler Realty Addition to the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, Bri Mar 2,. d Addition, as approved by the City Atttorney shall be developed and filed with the titles to the • property. 7 -17 -08 Page 5 5. The applicant shall provide the city with an executed copy of shared access easement • between the proposed Lots 1 and 2, Bri Mar 2 nd Addition prior to final plat approval to be filed with the titles to the properties. 6. The applicant shall execute all easements required by the City Engineer for drainage and utility purposes prior to final plat approval. 7. The applicant shall provide written certification from a licensed land surveyor that the existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard does not encroach into the boundaries of the proposed Lots 1 and 2 'or provide the appropriate sidewalk easement dedication along with the final plat. 8. Building permits for construction of any of the buildings comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 shall not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 9. The existing house at 4011 69 Avenue North shall be demolished or removed from the property and all utilities appropriately disconnected prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Leino, and Roche. And the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and adopted. • The Council will consider this application at its July 28, 2008 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that they be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2008-03 There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -03 regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -005 submitted by The Luther Company LLLP. The motion passed unanimously. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Leino, and Roche. And the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution as declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution 2008 -03 is made part of these minutes by attachment. The Council will consider this application at its July 28, 2008 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that they be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. • 7 -17 -08 Page 6 • OTHER BUSINESS Chair Rahn suggested that the discussion item of Flashing Signs be tabled until another meeting when the entire Commission is present. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass • • 7 -17 -08 Page 7 T ., J � I �! ♦ ♦ 1 e `Ve i t 6 it ♦ f \ + ♦♦ P' � ' A _ t ° ♦� � ° eo`�� x , . .. ,. � 111 /11/1 ♦ o♦ r i1 1 � 1111111011 •3 - - .Illllli.... . WJ' � AM 15 IHI11�1iI,N =. IIIIIIIIIIIIiINiNlllllli � - � �, � - -_ - g �a • ,tee. x¢' :ca _ ��n(�Fi�# a e A ll l l I N all 4PC� 11// .® .\ • �� 1 11111111 ./ • r o � f �' 111 '�•;� -'• �� �� _ :� �1 \�f� ��`. 1111/111 �, .., •� 0 .,r' ae d g eeEap 'j ,,��33yy �yi e i,'s`A•a �. ORR QI g$�� ffiffi � }�$$} �9 F 3 ®q (� }� • a $ � k t � g�� g � R � k � • ` F•1 4 3 i9 F . 0.8 . 88� (� Q u< m I f ill 4 F F a V C 1 § 'F+ §REkR ..iS 3i $$ !$ f$$ N$$$ UD 0 E a e J � � � i � � � � � � 9 � $ 3 � � � � � � �' 3 $� �$i1!$ � �[ R 3 e!83 �g O O • 1 1 . M ° 11 1113 1�lt3��3�33i1 t3i��i12l�t3 311 i3i11i r3 s�i�331ja -11 - 13, to s 5 S E �; ��8h8 :fit,i`�e €8ssaa #�Y.cre3:a:: MFR$ 8€ �. 8s�95a $a3L#6.$ss3Ys��€.S�Ea�§;�lPf :$�� :e°e � h.R't's�.113�lltii�l�tlial 331J ��' at�a��i��a�aaf�1311 7ata�iail i�1 11] #I��� € ... erg #R;3�a :9�s3�E6€aa�s aa§i§4 §s3i�R:.�ts4 :R�s�ta8aa.818� €s�� • V. S j11 Gdf 1� p ak f a3 it ° g l t : € d�6 al Ali iii p € !� g E6fA,$ fps & • ^ 3 $ :pggg� 5 ggge € i SSipli T 11 ° I � I v I � 3 I •;, ( I j a.Ls ,, ac e I I , d t ,1,111', ,1`1 I 1 j I m p ( AID aw � t If 1 a d 1 , $ III \` \' .•xw;\. ,� g 6 6 t t t x a x x 13 C� ICI,. �k — \i� =+\�```�. y ,� • a 6 € k a x � = s ON d d d d fill g I � � 1 I i i Ala, • � ° -,.� .� i � .. _- -� ;: L 1 I • 1 L BA BAKER ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTS 150 S Fifth Sheet, Suits 1425 Miaueapoits, MN 55402 -1200 Phone: 612.339.8601 Fas: 6123395660 d t# r B 8 "r, ,y, ,th twss w .N s`��� .+' a`, r *`•'�"+`'t r v Brookdale Honda .. , ... Brooklyn Park, MN New Facility Issued: ECE11V� APR 2 2 2013 ry � I hereby certry that this plan, specification ar report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Ooenaed ARCHITECT under the laws of the state of MINNESOTA Jon O. Baker A A pate: License No: xxt-ho xx I°.289 Sheet Title Proposed Ponda E Toyota Proposed Honda 4 Toyota • Scale NZ Sheet Number Dale 04/2 2/2011. IM-1 Comm No 02011 F e 1 , I I I I I I I I I r - - - -- / ' I � I Fg Jim []= 9® } I I L jr. 1 IN _ - -- is -- — __ 1 I I 1� ae x b q .. tl� � , Q E • n I I ly — I Jim i 1 E I - - - -� I ' - - -- - - - - ---------- i------ - - - - -- - 1 - - - -- - -�- - ---------- }------ - - - - -- - t E--- - - - - -� 6 • 3!® im r � i u F BE I d -- - - - - - -- — a 1 — I I — I -- --- n � — i " I I , , • s 1 1 a I o I a I e r J • I e I e I I I L T T TTT T B •tea'+ I e. +PM •�+•• I I T I I I I I KT .r�aY :c= w•:ti WON m •'. M +�# ®Toyota City +`°r~•"�+�.'+."'r�.x.•'".`" ... "� ,�„�� eewp.•.tan.W.RxSen ..r.. r F^a LLWl Ekw4ien n ° � ° 'G:f.. • �`r ... urn e.�..pw .+... b.er �1NaMpg 0 I I T . r m.w ew.•en. �A 201 1 r I a 1 s I e I • I e r ® a l i t , Ji f� I L - a a I I I I H II I i , I f - - -- - - - - -, 1. _ I a l - - - -- -- e— — — - - - - - -- I ____ _____ R ____ ------ P �� ®, I a 1S a IN 89 - 99 9 B9 , , - -- i j —AM -- r - - — — — — - -- - - - - -, -- -- - — T - - - - - -- i I I i i I 'i I - - -- i� I j I� jl j j I j i . - --------------- I ,_ I I � - - - -- I II -- - i i vi AWA Ah rm ............. ------------- Preliminary Plat/ Subdivision Approval Bri-Mar 2nd Addition Future Redevelopment of 6700 & 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4011, 4101, 4215 - 69th Avenue North �5 LUTHER AUTO - BROOKDALE HONDA& TOYOTA CITY 6700 -6800 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD O BROOKLYN CENTER KIN AREA LOCATION MAP - ' � NO SGt£ p�t�t��MViy,t 4 t,'1<V e Ir 69TH VE.NO, I , S IJ'1'ER9TATE HWY. NO. 94 �i p .q'c Al v� � S �r ,?VIII M.+• ,� I�/; s t i� ��;�lli�ll�fi9i'1%�791{' • s f., i �ti ".� .. I ,�i 1 iM lrMl , ntr --- -F°"" °"�"' / eta 1a•'t••C e. ro..t ., ..+ i wii 1 11 I - :• . i• .. :• ...,.•• ety1�� � y DIBU PI_w nl RAMR <e—� ., RrmfkAnle FlenAa D �"� /✓� 1 � i B1 w � � �� .� ',� Itnn�kd•Ir Rnn4 r nllu(,K milmilmll AM g e e c t c y c' TOYOTA e �� rin�ob�egr � erd f •. wow � � � /Ja® -� � I y � - �1����1 I II I I I;I I I I 1• � � ,/ _-111.7 v ��� lyll.•` � :- r0 NORTX L-YW k t Ei� 4 d•�f t!3 't y3 q,6 t :° � � � •••- -i Sinai lli r14 i 'aqua. . ■! a1�IJM 1�m ont-s�MMOMMMrns.+air• -- i� nr.a :31 R' u 1 /➢ �le>•ur4w�r� N�M���C���O�Cit7 iuiiW�„����'1 �Mrs�.r'�t Iti:l R. a ■■■■■■■1■III I�■■� ���_���_i��.i�'lll 111 ■�_ _ ■L�I>�71�11�■■�11�1■�11 II Ilf E� ���� , ' •- BA LI 111®■■��1�1��11 II Illii■�� Sft, ter �111�1�11 �1111� � � r. �` ill�llll�llllll�ll�l�llll1 ■■1■- == =�� =�� East Elevation -. ■■®1111■■■■■ South �-:Jevatior 111111■■�■■�■■�■�_® ®1■■■■■■■■ . . 'id k vu w --- ---p---�Ira■■aaa■aa■,a�aa■a.■■■■■■ ■ ■��■■■ uaa■�aa■I�aaa■saa�la�a�a�aa■II IIIII�I■In■�®®���■1 �iv��i����������o■■aaaa�aaaaa�■aaaaaaaaae�■aaaaa�■aaaaaa�■aaaaaa■■naaaaa■■aaaaaa�a■®aa�naaaaaa�a■ OR n■"�mmmm■1 ���..�����1.����■���1�1�1 1■1 IN! INN pTA i G■ii u�ii■�i�i?i■�Tii�■�i ���■a�■�i■���i?iTiTii■i�i?i�ii ■ 1111 HI --1 --■ II � — — --- — — --- --- --- --- �. ■ il:_ ■■:� ����:—s: \ —� — — — ��o',—i o,.d�-�o—o..ion—s�—s..s� .. BRI MAR 2nd ADDITION Plat Modifications 2008 Plat vs. 2011 Plat xm \ HONDA � =� .u•...w.w+ a xxm ACM AR .... _.6077 TOYMA _ m �. � OLOT 3 � G� -------- --- LOT 2 0 •a 8D ACRD :.c^r-a,-r•.:I x�caaa ac..as +r% /�_1 " rian�..... W.� BRI MAR 2ND . -------=- _-- ADDITION ----------- 7 06 'HONDA ♦ awww♦ � x t llrrrrrr� «�r.� ..nr •� •a� FY.Y i1F•M �:' •�� t' � � ^ � it ��� .,,., '60TA I a' \\ �� sxnoevrearnOMr 9 RE.aM�(0 \ G� m IA= ' MY OUVWMAL a more ISI •'\ '`�\ if •�` C✓�- - �1 A'' S � . • City Council Agenda Item No. 10a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: 7 June 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal & Support Servi s SUBJECT: 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ( R) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Background: On Monday evening, 6 June 2011, the City Council and Financial Commission met in a joint working session to hear from Jim Eichten of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., the City's auditors, about the results of their audit of our financial statements for the period ended 31 December 2010. This assembly of financial statements and data is known as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or 2010 CAFR. During the session Mr. Eichten reviewed the purpose of the audit process and the results of his firm's work on the 2010 CAFR audit. Most importantly, the City received an unqualified opinion on the presentation of the 2010 financial information, also known as a clean opinion. This indicates that the accounting and reporting systems for the City conform in all material aspects to the regulations and practices of the Government Finance Officers Association, the Government Accounting Standards Board, • and generally accepted accounting principles. Supplemental opinions on Legal Compliance with State of Minnesota regulations and Internal Control and Operational issues from the auditors indicated that two prior year issues regarding timely recording of transactions and internal control of payroll processes had been addressed and were no longer of concern. . The City also received more than $ 500,000 in Federal financial assistance during 2010. This triggers an additional audit procedure known as the A -133 or Single Audit. It looks for proper receipt, use, recording and reporting on federal financial assistance. The City's awards were for the Bass Lake Road renovation project under ARRA, CDBG funds used for local assistance and code enforcement activities, and grants to assist the law enforcement division with staffing and equipment. In total, the City received $ 3,160,498 in Federal funding for 2010. In all, we believe the 2010 CAFR preparation and audit went quite well for Brooklyn Center. The information in the report reveals a City in good financial condition that should continue to monitor itself carefully to insure its continued fiscal responsibility. The attached resolution ratifies the work done by City staff and accepts the 2010 CAFR, Audit Opinion, and related materials. Budget Issues: The information from the 2010 CAFR will be used in preparing forecasts and projects for future budgets. However, the 2010 CAFR has no direct impact on the budget. • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe convnunity that enhances the duality of life and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by State Statute and City Charter to annually produce financial statements for submission to the Office of the State Auditor by June 30 each year; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to provide an auditor's opinion as to the representations in the annual financial statements; and WHEREAS, the financial statements have been audited by the independent CPA firm of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. as required; and WHEREAS, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. opined that the general purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Brooklyn Center as of December 31, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City • of Brooklyn Center that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Brooklyn Center for the calendar year ended December 31, 2010, and all supporting documentation, is hereby adopted as the official financial record for the 2010 fiscal year. June 13 2011 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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. 2010 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Department 's Role • Develop operating policies and procedures for conduct of financial activities — Policies subject to City Council Aapproval • Transact financial business of the City — According to policies and procedures — According to Ordinances and resolutions — According to State and Federal Law — According to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles • Account for and report on financial operations of the City — Monthly budget reports — Annual Budget development — Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 2010 C1t)� of Brooklyn Center Minnesota Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the. year ended December 31, 2010 Audit C AFR • All Cities over 2,500 population in Minnesota are required to have an independent audit of their annual financial statement • Brooklyn Center solicits proposals for audit services every six years (by City Council policy) . • Current auditor is Malloy, Montague, Karnowski , Radosevich & Co. — 2010 is the fourth of six years • Approximately two weeks on site examining process, procedures, documents, inventories and interviewing staff in order to make a determination on the appropriateness of the financial reporting. • Review the final CAFR document in detail Auditor 's Role • Opinion on Financial Statements — Financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP • Testing of Internal Controls and Compliance — Internal controls over financial reporting — Compliance with laws and regulations related to financial reporting • State Laws and Regulations — Assure compliance with Minnesota laws and regulations • Single Audit of Federal Awards (over $ 500,000 in any year) — Schedule of Federal awards — Internal controls over Federal award programs — Compliance with laws and regulations related to Federal programs MMKR >K��1 th„m,s st xa.,rpv.CrA r.ul A.w.t.,..h'tTA AIM—1 tom.,.t TA CERTIFIED PUBLIC l.mmH rab.cn.aTA A C C O U N T A N T u,.,.t.vKt.n.rTA \'i.i.i L.fl..lin4,.(TA INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S kLaM To the City Council and Residents City of Brooklyn Center,Minn"Ma We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities,the business-type activities,each major fund,and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Brooklyn Center (the City)as of and for the year ended December 31,2010,which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. Thcsc financial statements are the r sponsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with aud'aing standards generally accepted in the United States or America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Andiri"g Standards. issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require:hat we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial stateners are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over t-mancial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that arc appropriate in the circumstances•but not for the purpose of expressing an Opinion on the effectiveness of the Ciiy•s internal control over financial reporting. Awurdiug!y,we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining,on a test basis,evidence supporting the amounts and disclosrres in the financial statements. An audit also inchides assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion,the financial statements ref-crred to above present fairly, in all material respects,the respective financial position of the kovermnental activities,the business-type activities,each major fund, and the aggregate remaining tbnd information of the City as of December 31.3410.and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows. where applicable thereof. for the year then erased. in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United Slates of America. In accordance with Governer Audiling Standards,we have also issued a report dated May 26.2011 on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws,regulations,contracts,grant agreements,and other matters. The purpmc of that report is to describe the scope of oar testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Gm•ernmenr Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. (cominued) ki.n r. M..aragus. Karnnw.ki. Rado. ish tv C,.., P.A. «it'l',.r,,,R...1„r.:•.,.,,,.in•v�.,,,,•I.. st\s<y�t•tbl.rh,+. ns�.<.<.tia!i•7:1:f.::�5:=<6<-agAS Mea mutt,-,.,� Auditor 's Opinion and Findings • Financial Statements — Unqualified or Clean Opinion • Internal Controls over Financial Reporting — No findings — Prior Year finding have been addressed and cleared • Accounts Payable audit adjustment • Approval Authority over payroll related transactions • Legal Compliance Audit Findings — No Findings • Single Audit of Federal Awards — No Findings Requested Action • That the City Council consider a Resolution Adopting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the year ended December 31, 2010 City Council 1 y ou c Agenda Item No. Ob MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION . DATE: June 9, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Fees for Community Gardens Recommendation: At the May 21, 2010 worksession of the consensus of City Council was to remove the Community Gardens Fee item from the Council Agenda Table so it can be referred to the advisory commissions for additional study and recommendation. Background: On June 10 2010 Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded a motion to table consideration of establishing a fee for community garden plots in the City of Brooklyn Center. The motion passed unanimously. During the discussion of this item several issues were raised regarding the potential location for community gardens. Staff indicated it would continue to look for suitable locations. • During the Joint meetings with Commissions the Housing Commission expressed an interest in identifying a site and developing a community gardens program. More recently the Park Commission has agreed to work with the Housing Commission on this project. It is expected that the two Commissions will provide a report to the City Council later this year regarding a suitable location (s) and community gardens program. It is expected that the report will identify costs as well. It would seem that action on establishing a fee amount should be deferred until the Council takes action on the Commission report. 06.13.11.10.b.garden.fees..doc • Mission: Ensnrima are attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the equality oflyf andpreserves the public trust MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC • DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 23, 2011 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 9:49 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor /President Tim Willson and Councilmembers /Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager /Director of Building & Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY GARDENS PROGRAM City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, reviewed the history, and requested Council • direction on the motion on the table regarding a Community Gardens Program. It was noted the Housing Commission and Recreation Commission are working together to develop a Community Gardens Program and fee schedule but that work will not be completed in 2011. The City Council /EDA asked staff to provide the information it considered to those Commissions and suggested the Environmental Commission, if organized, also consider this matter. The City Council /EDA referenced a March 30, 2011, Sun Newspaper article recapping the work of volunteer Diane Sannes in receiving a $1,500 Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) grant from Hennepin County on behalf of the Odyssey -Vinai garden. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to place Community Gardens on the June 13, 2011, Council agenda so it can be removed from the table and referred to advisory commissions for additional study and recommendation. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:56 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • 05/23/11 -1- DRAFT i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: C . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEES FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, .the City Council of the . City of Brooklyn Center has discussed the creation of a community gardening program at the following work sessions: August 24, 2009, January 25, 2010 and April 26, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City established that there would be a cost associated with. establishing garden plots, allowing access to water and coordinating the Community Garden Program; and WHEREAS, the City established that there would be costs associated with a program providing rental garden plots, including a water storage tank in lieu of an irrigation system. NOW, THLRFF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of. Brooklyn Center, that a fee be adopted for rental of a Community Garden Plot as follows: • Community Garden Plot Rental Fee $25.00 �- BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that this resolution shall be effective µ Date Tim Willson, 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. • Mr. Jordet thanked Springsted for this recognition on behalf of the City. He recognized that this • accomplishment is not just for the Fiscal and Support Services Department but for every City Department, the City Manager, and the Council for making decisions on use. and allocation of funds. 7b. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Mr. Jordet described the application process for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and read in full the plaque received for the 2008 financial report. He recognized the contribution of Assistant Finance Director Clara Hilger for putting this information together and thanked the City Manager for his support, the Council, and citizens. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to accept the plaque commemorating bond rating upgrade from Springsted and Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. (FORMERLY CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. .6e) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FEE FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN PLOTS IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Councilmember Ryan stated the matter before the Council is the establishment of ,a fee for community garden plots to cover the City's expenses. However, he requested the item be removed from the Consent Agenda to address the appropriateness of the location. He urged the Council to reconsider its provisional decision to locate community gardens at the Xcel property north of the 5700 block of Colfax Avenue. Councilmember Yelich stated he also supports the Community Garden Program; however, as discussed at the Study Session, the City did not take the necessary steps in site selection by contacting neighbors so he would apologize for that. He indicated support to move forward in the future because it is an important component for building community if done in a more acceptable manner to find an appropriate location. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to table consideration of establishing a fee for community garden plots in the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Roche asked whether staff's recommendation to not proceed is due to poor soil quality. Mr. Boganey stated the quality of the soil at that location is one issue but other issues are significant factors as well. Councilmember Ryan recognized the attendance of residents from this neighborhood and stated he visited them last Thursday when they made their valid concerns clear should the program • 05/10/10 -5- • move forward. He indicated he would not support a community garden at this location due to objections of the neighborhood and wants to assure proper guidance is given regarding the need to address setback, parking, and nuisance issues that may occur from a community garden. Mayor Willson noted if this consideration is tabled,- the $25 fee may need to be adjusted depending on when it is reconsidered and the garden location. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Willson thanked Mr. Eitel of all of his work on the Community Garden Program. 8b. ORDINANCE NO. 2010-05 AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 71 sT AVENUE) City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item and stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Eitel presented the background of the property located on Brooklyn Boulevard and described the proposed addition to the adult education building, three -story parking structure, a redesign of access and internal movement within the parking lot of the Early Child Learning Center, and access improvements from 71S Avenue North. It was noted the Planning Commission • recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Lillehaug presented an aerial map and described the realigned intersection to guide and encourage traffic from this building and school to Brooklyn Boulevard and closure of two driveways off Perry Avenue. It was noted bus access to the school will be from Brooklyn Boulevard instead of Perry Avenue. Staff is confident these road improvements will result in decreased traffic on Perry and 71S Avenues. However, it is estimated 70 new trips per day will come to this site using Perry and 71" Avenues, which will offset the decrease resulting from the road improvements. Mr. Lillehaug presented traffic volumes as measured last week and indicated staff does not see any traffic issues that need to be mitigated based on volumes. However, if a safety issue arises or there is an extreme increase in traffic volume, it will be addressed by the City through the City's Traffic Advisory Committee. He noted the significant roadway improvement as well as signal modifications will be paid by the developer. Mr. Lillehaug recommended the City continue its support of this project with the improvements as recommended. The Council noted staff has given a lot of thought to traffic issues, how they can be addressed should something arise, and a baseline measurement has been made so it can be objectively known if there is a change. The question was raised who would cover the cost if mitigation is needed after the project is constructed. Mr. Boganey stated all of the improvements the City believes need to be made have been proposed and the developer is paying the vast majority of 05/10/10 -6- DATE: May 4, 2010 • TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development' SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Fees For Community Garden Plots in the City of Brooklyn Center Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider the adoption of the Resolution Establishing Fees For Community Garden Plots in the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: The August 24, 2009 City Council Work Session included a presentation on the Community Garden Programs within the Cities of Hopkins and Brooklyn Park and a general overview of information obtained from the American Community Garden Association on starting a community garden within the City. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to conduct further exploration, refine the possibilities, and define the structure of a community garden �.. program. • The January 25, 2010, the City Council Work Session included a report on establishing a Community Gardening within the Xcel Energy Transmission Corridor and on a vacant EDA owned lot. The majority consensus of the .City Council was to direct staff to proceed with a community garden program within the Xcel Energy Transmission Corridor at Colfax Avenue and with establishment of neighborhood garden plots at 5301 James Avenue in accordance with the January 20, 2010, staff report, and to report back to Council with further information. On April 26, 2010, the City Council Work Session included a report which identified financial issues relative to providing an irrigation system/source of water, the conceptual layout for a 39 plot garden layout within the Xcel Energy . Corridor, draft guidelines and application. I . The consensus of the Council was to proceed with a 2010 pilot garden program with the use of temporary water storage tank and a $25 rental fee to cover out of pocket costs by the City. Council Goals Strategic: 4. We will positively address the community demographic makeup and increasing cultural diversity 6. We will respond to increased public awareness and interest in environmental . sustainability and green community issues • AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION • June 13, 2011 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front, of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation on "No Smoking in the Parks Policy 2. Update on Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 1) 3. 2011 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Request for Proposals (RFP) 4. Designating City Commission to Provide Review and Input on the Watershed Management Plan 5. Report on Shingle Creek Towers Sale 6. Preview of New City Website PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later /Ongoing • 1. Progress Reports on Achievement of Strategic Goals 2. School District Discussions/BC Strategic Plan Report 3. All City Open House 4. Sister City Update 5. Neighborhood Designations 6. Active Living Program 7. Graduated Sanitary Utility Rate Study 8. Garbage Hauler Organized Collection Update 9. Financial Commission Report — Utility Collection 10. Youth Participation Request 11. Highway 252 Update — June 2011 12. Annual Department Year End Reports • Work Session Agenda Item No. I x MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION • DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation- No Smoki g in Parks Policy Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the recommended policy. Background. In September of last year, I received a request from the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program regarding their efforts to have communities adopt tobacco free policies for their parks. VWhile the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council addressed this issue in 2004, (a copy of the ; City Council Resolution is attached) a formal policy was never developed. Subsequently, the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program requested time before the Commission to ask that consideration be given to strengthening the City's position on this issue: • The TFYR materials support their belief that the most important aspect of a recreation -based tobacco prevention strategy is the adoption of a tobacco -free policy. The materials also contain rationale for enacting a tobacco free policy, supporting data, model policies, suggested implementation plans and a summary of communities that have enacted tobacco free ordinances and /or policies: To date, 126 policies have been enacted in the state. Some have completely banned tobacco use in parks by ordinance, while others have simply posted tobacco free zones during youth activities. In the communities that have adopted policies, the primary enforcement tool has been signage. The Tobacco Free Youth Recreation Program provides free signs for all facilities covered under the policy. Representatives from TFYR and I presented this information to the Park and Recreation Commission at their October meeting and subsequently solicited additional information at their request. Over the course of the next three meetings, the Commission heard from area residents and students, including many letters of supporting the no smoking policy. In addition, they studied policies of other communities and discussed various "levels" of policy support. In discussing the issue, the Commission was (as it was in 2004) not comfortable in tying a total "no smoking in the parks" ban to the current City Ordinance. By not tying it to an Ordinance, it significantly limits the enforcement of the policy, as violation of any Ordinance carries possible civil and monetary penalties. It is worth noting, there was considerable discussion by the • Commission on this exact point. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe conununity that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION • Ultimately, the Commission did determine that the were supportive of a policy that prohibits Y pp p Y p tobacco use in youth activity areas. At their February 2011 meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission unanimously passed a resolution recommending the attached policy to the City Council. As you will note, it only limits tobacco use in Youth Activity Areas, as defined in the policy. Given the somewhat contentious nature of this item, we felt it best to first bring this item to the City Council at a work session. By doing so, we can provide them with background information regarding the Commission discussions and final recommendation and answer any questions they might have. Park and Recreation Commission Chair Arvid Sorenson, representatives from the Tobacco Free Youth Recreation Program and I will plan to be in attendance at next week's meeting. As always, please let me know if you have any questions regarding the recommendation or would like additional information. Policy Issues: Does the City Council want to limit smoking in its parks and open spaces? • Council Goals: Ongoing: 5. We will improve the image of the City with citizens and those outside of the City's borders • Mission Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust • adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN TOBACCO -FREE YOUTH RECREATION PROGRAM INITIATIVE WHEREAS, the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program initiative has offered to provide signs for use in City parks to post areas as "no smoking" during organized youth activities; and WHEREAS, encouraging tobacco -free areas around organized youth activities would promote better and healthier environments for youth in City parks; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the City place donated tobacco -free zone signs that would encourage tobacco -free areas around organized youth activities in Brooklyn Center parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the ^ acceptance of tobacco- free -area. signs from the Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Program-Initiative be and hereby is autho ' ed and be it further authorized that the placement of such signs_ in City par- ks-be-underrt�ffort to encourage smoke -free areas in the vicinity of organized youth activities in City parks. June 28, 2004 Date Mayor ATTEST: City 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 dulypassed and adopted. • City t)f BROOKLYN CENTER vU City of Brooklyn Center Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT City of Brooklyn Center, Parks and Open Spaces Tobacco -Free Policy: In order to protect the health and welfare of our children, the City of Brooklyn Center prohibits the use of all tobacco products in youth activity areas. POLICY STATEMENT The City of Brooklyn Center is committed to the quality of life for all residents, therefore, we believe that: 1. Tobacco product use in the proximity of children and youth engaging in recreational activities is • unhealthy and detrimental to the health of others. 2. Tobacco products once consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground, thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem. 3. As parents, leaders, coaches, and officials we are thought of as role models, and the use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. TOBACCO —FREE FACILITIES The City of Brooklyn Center does not allow the use of tobacco products on city -owned property predominantly used by minors, such as parkland, park facilities, open space or joint city /school district properties. These areas include: • Park Playground Areas • Youth Ball Fields • Skating Rinks • Basketball Courts COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES The emphasis on enforcing the Tobacco -Free park policy is through voluntary compliance: 1. Appropriate City -owned parkland, park facilities, open space or joint City /school district properties will be appropriately signed. 2. City of Brooklyn Center staff will meet with activity organizations and /or leaders or coaches to discuss the policy and to distribute flyers with the "Tobacco Free" policy. • 3. City of Brooklyn Center staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. Policy Adoption Date: Lo_ «o -FREE Most Comprehensive Tobacco -Free Policies for Park VQ ¢ECRERnam � srmn.og • Property & Recreational Facilities in Cities Near Brooklyn Center, MN Brooklyn Park Pop. 75,700 Policy: The city of Brooklyn Park does not allow the use of tobacco products on all city parks, recreation areas and open spaces are tobacco -free, except for the two city -owned golf courses. Exception: two city -owned golf courses Adoption date: May 16, 2011 Contact: Jon Oyanagi, Director, Recreation and Park Department, 5600 85th Ave N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443; (763) 493 -8337; Jon.Oyanagi @brooklynpark.org Champlin Pop. 23,000 Policy: "The City of Champlin does not allow the use of tobacco products on city -owned parkland, recreational facilities, city facilities, and open space." • Adoption date: May 10, 2004 Contact: Eric Carlson, Park & Recreation Director, 11955 Champlin Dr., Champlin, MN 55316; (763) 923 -7132; ecarlson(&ci.champlin.mn.us Coon Rapids Pop. 61,400 Policy: "The City of Coon Rapids does not allow the use of tobacco products on city -owned parkland, park facilities, open space or joint city/school district properties." Exceptions: Bunker Hills Golf Course; within the confines of a vehicle in a designated parking area. Adoption date: February 17, 2004 Contact: Steve Gatlin, Public Works Director, 1831 — 111 Ave. NW, Coon Rapids, MN 55433; (763) 755 -2880; gatlin(a&ci.coon- rapids.mn.us Dayton Pop. 4,600 Policy: "The City of Dayton does not allow the use of tobacco products on city-owned parkland, recreational facilities, city facilities, and open space." Adoption date: June 14, 2005 • Contact: Rick Hass, Public Works Superintendent, 16471 S. Diamond Lake Rd., Dayton, MN 55327; (763) 427 -3224 Brooklyn Center is home to seven public elementary and secondary schools that are adjacent to city - owned parks. These schools and schools grounds, served by four different districts, are all covered by • comprehensive tobacco -free policies that prohibit the use of all tobacco products at all times. Though frequented by students, these parks are currently NOT covered by a comprehensive city tobacco -free policy. Anoka - Hennepin School District 1. Evergreen Elementary adjacent to Evergreen Park (numbers 12 and 13 on map) Policy summary All facilities, grounds and vehicles are tobacco free and no person shall use any tobacco product on property leased, contracted for or owned by the district. (revised 2006) Brooklyn Center Schools 2. Brooklyn Center High School adjacent to Firehouse Park (numbers 4 and 14 on map) 3. Earle Brown Elementary adjacent to Grandview Park (numbers 10 and 18 on map) Policy summary No person (visitor, staff or student) may use any tobacco products, tobacco related devices or electronic cigarettes in school buildings, school vehicles, on school property or at off - campus school- sponsored events. No student may possess any tobacco products, tobacco related devices or electronic cigarettes in school buildings, school vehicles, on school property or at off - campus school - sponsored events. (adopted 2010) • Osseo Area Schools 4. Garden City Elementary adjacent to Garden City Park (numbers 16 and 17 on map) 5. Palmer Lake Elementary adjacent to West Palmer Park (numbers 29 and 34 on map) 6. Willow Lane Early Childhood Center adjacent to Willow Lane Park (numbers 35 and 36 on map) Policy summary Tobacco is prohibited in all school buildings and vehicles and on all school grounds all hours of the day, 365 days a year. All individuals share the responsibility of enforcement. (adopted 1999) Robbinsdale School District 7. Northport Elementary adjacent to Northport Park (numbers 24 and 25 on map) Policy summary No person (visitor, staff or student) may use any tobacco products, tobacco related devices or electronic cigarettes in school buildings, school vehicles, on school property or at off - campus school- sponsored events. No student may possess any tobacco products, tobacco related devices or electronic cigarettes in school buildings, school vehicles, on school property or at off - campus school - sponsored events. (adopted 2010) Fe✓ • - T TMINNESO V ISI ON SHIP iot�cco F aEE � �G' f'h'.lhh ImpY'/Y71 /P w r'YI'gI'i /I!/ l :.:.... ...... YOUTH REC1114110N 29 z 3R AVE w D ~ 1 31 p 13 O LJL • Q o D o OQ F YBL 4 X D apa 17 "' 0 a� o Z 26 LLI ooE z � ��' OHM � � W z D DD Lu Q z 000D ooD a J J \ m = Trails = 25 � o Elm - = Sidewalks \ 1►n'f � ', aF-1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 0 PARKS AND SCHOOLS Updated 07 -30 -10 Community Center 763 - 569 -3400 1 Arboretum 13 Evergreen Elementary School 25 Northport Elementary School 61"& Major Avenue 7020 Dupont Avenue 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard 2 Bellvue Park 14 Firehouse Park 26 Odyssey Academy 55' & Aldrich Avenue 65` & Bryant Avenue 6201 Noble Avenue 3 Bob Cahlander Park 15 Freeway Park 27 Orchard Lane Park 65` & Brooklyn Boulevard 67` & Beard Avenue 65` & Orchard Lane 4 Brooklyn Center High School 16 Garden City Park 28 Palmer Lake Nature Area 6500 Humboldt Avenue 65` & Brooklyn Boulevard 69 Avenue between 5 Centerbrook Golf Course 17 Garden City Elementary School East & West Palmer Parks 5500 N Lilac Drive 3501 65` Avenue 29 Palmer Lake Elementary School 6 Central Park 18 Grandview Park 7300 W Palmer Lake Drive 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 60 & Humboldt Avenue 30 Riverdale Park 7 Central Park West 19 Happy Hollow Park Dallas & Riverdale Road 63` & Brooklyn Drive 50 "' & Abbott Avenue 31 St. Alphonsus School 8 City Hall 20 Kylawn Park 71"& Halifax Avenue 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 61" & Kyle Avenue 32 Twin Lake Park 9 Community Center 21 Lions Park 47` & Twin Lake Avenue 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55"' & Russell Avenue 33 Wangstad Park 10 Earle Brown Elementary School 22 Marlin Park 61 & France Avenue • 1500 59 Avenue Marlin Drive & Indiana Avenue 34 West Palmer Park 11 East Palmer Park 23 N Mississippi Regional Park 72 & W Palmer Lake Drive 71"& Oliver Avenue 57th & Lyndale (entrance) 35 Willow Lane Early Childhood t2 Evergreen Park 24 Northport Park 7020 Perry Avenue r 72 & Bryant Avenue 55 & Sailor Lane 36 Willow Lane Park 69 & Orchard Avenue n A Policy Maker's Guide to Tobacco-Free Policies for Community Park Systems rV i r� C F0BA((( -FREE RE CREATION co!ieeparks.erg =A o. In this guide, you will find: • Model Tobacco -Free Policy • Sample policies from Minnesota cities with tobacco -free park policies • Map of Minnesota cities and counties with tobacco -free parks • Policy enforcement and publicity information • Ordering information for free tobacco -free metal signs • Frequently Asked Questions • References from communities with existing tobacco -free park policies T o b acco - F ree F or C Playing Tobacco Free: Tobacco -Free Policies For Park & Recreation Areas Tobacco -Free Park and Recreation Tobacco -Free Park and Recreation Areas Promote Health Policies Work • Parks are established to promote healthy Over 100 Minnesota communities have adopted tobacco -free activities. The purpose of park areas is to promote policies for their park and recreation areas. In 2004, the community wellness, and tobacco -free policies fit with this University of Minnesota surveyed Minnesota residents to idea. learn about the level of support for tobacco -free park and recreation policies. Minnesota park directors were also • Cigarette litter is dangerous. Discarded cigarettes interviewed to ask how they felt about tobacco -free policies. pollute the land and water and may be ingested by toddlers, Here are the study's key findings: pets, birds, or fish. • Tobacco -free policies help change community What Minnesota residents say: norms. Tobacco -free policies establish the community norm that tobacco use is not an acceptable behavior for Most Minnesotans support tobacco -free park and young people or adults within the entire community. recreation policies. 70% of Minnesota residents • Tobacco -free environments promote positive support tobacco -free park and recreation areas. In community role modeling and protect the health, addition, 66 of golfers and 73% of families with children safety, and welfare of community members. support these policies. • Secondhand smoke harms everyone. Secondhand Policies should prohibit all forms of tobacco. 79% smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in of residents supported tobacco -free policies that prohibit children and adults who do not smoke. all forms of tobacco use, including spit tobacco. • Secondhand smoke is harmful in outdoor settings. - Parks should be tobacco free at all times. Just Several studies have found that secondhand smoke levels in over half (53% of respondents supported the prohibition of tobacco use in parks at all times. oO utdoor public places can reach levels as high as those und in indoor facilities where smoking is permitted. 1,2 • Community members support policy • Policies provide consistency among community enforcement. 79% of Minnesotans felt that policies athletic facilities and groups. The majority of should b° felt that violators should be fined. e enforced by asking violators to leave park community sporting events are held at either city or school areas. 64 /o athletic facilities, and nearly all school districts prohibit tobacco use on their entire grounds. Also, many local What Minnesota park directors say: athletic associations have tobacco -free policies but use city facilities and would benefit from acity-wide policy. •Park directors overwhelmingly recommend adopting tobacco -free policies. 90% of park directors in cities with policies reported that they would recommend tobacco -free policies to other communities. • Nearly all park directors personally supported The Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation Initiative tobacco -free policies. Out of 257 park directors, Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation (TFYR) is a 96% wanted to provide positive role models for youth. recreation -based tobacco prevention program that • 92% wanted to reduce youth opportunity to smoke. assists recreational groups in promoting healthy • 92% wanted to avoid litter from cigarette butts. tobacco -free lifestyles. TFYR offers free assistance in 89% wanted to promote community well- being. tobacco -free policy development and implementation. . Policies reduce litter and maintenance costs. 58% Contact TFYR for policy assistance or more of Minnesota park directors in cities with policies reported information! cleaner park areas. • Policy enforcement and violations are not issues. In Minnesota communities with a policy, few park Association for Nonsmokers— Minnesota directors (26 %) reported compliance issues and 74% 2395 University Ave. West, #310 reported no problems with park users violating the policy. 1. St. Paul, MN 55114 -1512 (651) 646 -3005 Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. (May 2007). "Real -Time Measurements of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles." Journal of Air & Waste F Management Association 57. / hACCO FREE www.tobaccofreeparks.org OTk RECREATION /� 'California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. (2003). "Technical Support Document for the Proposed ^I .•icbe eLNkS tli; tfyr @ansrm n.Org Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report. Chapter 5, pp. V6 -V19. 'Klein EG, Forster IL, Outley, CW, McFadden, B. (2007). "Minnesota Tobacco -Free Park Policies: Attitudes of the General Public and Park Officials." Nicotine & Tobacco Research 9, S1, pp. 2 Tobacco-Free Park & Recreational Facilities in Minnesota (136 Park Policies & Ordinances) 79 80 0 48 120 34 26 22 19 98 7 18 10 21 32 27 65 23 63 • 14 72 54 58 52 69 25 Policy Key 39 11 62 55 66 g ## =City -owned parks with atobacco- 28 68 free policy (126 policies) 91 85 110 = County -owned parks with a 78 118 tobacco -free policy (7 policies) 88 82 64 11 71 = All city -owned and county -owned 77 13 42 g parks have a tobacco -free policy 83 16 (1 policy) 59 51 C = Three Rivers Park District 20 29 95 D = Native American Reservations 76 H (1 policy) 35 116 10 E = See Metro Map for policies in 89 117 I P Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, 113 Ramsey, Scott, and Washington 105 Counties (45 policies) 47 41 123 43 6 l ot , 121 125F° _ 94 73 90 44 31 75 97 May 2011 Metro Communities e with Toba F East ree Oak Bethel Grove Pamirs Policies K A tnseq Andover Forest Lak Lake Anoka Pic IF n — 9e yton Coon Lino Lakes St ix VVV Rapids BI l Hugo Champlin C e e n Spring r e W A H I H 7r I PAR Maple Y Lake -t- Q N reenfiel Corcoran rove rk. ark Fulo orth J ookiy IeyNei Oaks Grant ,,@@ rfghtort� . ' A Great Plate to P �9 fihbia Ar adn M edi ti I r H C inout nter N y h C ei hts ,. Hills depende c Medina f ale pl Lake - Elmo kd le a z -Gown Minnetrista t. Lou S ark inneapolis m F St. B acius netonka• Afton dina hanhass den Richfield Hen do ictor' a rairie Chask Bloomington Inver Cotta e • A �< « i Eag Grove 9 Heights Grove d Calswrie Shakopee Burnsville; Yotm rica rA p ple Prior al ley Lake a Tobacco -Free Lakeville Ver J Park Communities r C17 T T f _ F rrning n D A K 0 T El County -owned parks n a ton Mi p . City -owned parks New Marke- Three Rivers Park N e EI o District parks R i No field May 2011 i1 Ytr91 " " • Minnesota Communities with Tobacco -Free Parks, sorted alphabetically Map # Community County Adoption Date Map # Community County Adoption Date 73 Adrian Nobles 2 -27 -06 77 Donnelly Stevens 4 -3 -06 25 Aitkin Aitkin 6 -2 -03 14 Duluth St. Louis 2 -12 -03 90 Albert Lea Freeborn 11 -13 -06 17 Eagan Dakota 3 -25 -03 64 Alexandria Douglas 5 -23 -05 43 Eagle Lake Blue Earth 4 -5 -04 57 Andover Anoka 9 -21 -04 12 Eden Prairie Hennepin 9 -17 -02 53 Anoka Anoka 7 -6 -04 56 Edina Hennepin 8 -17 -04 70 Arden Hills Ramsey 9 -12 -05 78 Elbow Lake Grant 4 -3 -06 113 Arlington Sibley 10 -18 -10 59 Elk River Sherburne 10 -18 -04 85 Ashby Grant 7 -5 -06 75 Ellsworth Nobles 3 -13 -06 19 Aurora St. Louis 4 -1 -03 27 Eveleth St. Louis 6 -3 -03 31 Austin 7 Mower 7-2-03 4 1 Faribault Rice 2 -25 -04 66 Battle Lake Otter Tail 6 -14 -05 23 Fayal Township St. Louis 5 -20 -03 80 Baudette Lake of the Woods 5 -8 -06 55 Fergus Falls Otter Tail 8 -9 -04 8 Baxter Crow Wing 3 -1 -02 102 Gaylord Sibley 5 -29 -08 120 Bemidji Beltrami 12 -14 -10 117 Glencoe McLeod 11 -15 -10 22 Biwabik St. Louis 5 -12 -03 15 Golden Valley Hennepin 3 -4 -03 115 Blaine Anoka 11 -4 -10 32 Grand Rapids Itasca 7 -14 -03 7 3 Bloomington Hennepin 6 -18 -01 93 Ham Lake Anoka 1 -2 -07 11 Brainerd Crow Wing 6 -6 -02 83 Hancock Stevens 6 -12 -06 28 Breckenridge Wilkin 6 -16 -03 94 Hardwick Rock 2 -13 -07 126 Brooklyn Park Hennepin 5 -16 -11 96 Hastings Dakota 5 -7 -07 95 Buffalo Wright 4 -16 -07 62 Henning Otter Tail 5 -3 -05 26 Buhl St. Louis 6 -3 -03 88 Herman Grant 10 -16 -06 63 Callaway Becker 5 -10 -05 72 Hermantown St. Louis 2 -10 -06 89 Canby Yellow Medicine 11 -8 -06 18 Hibbing St. Louis 3 -31 -03 46 Champlin Hennepin 5 -10 -04 110 Hinckley Pine 8 -3 -10 108 Chatfield Fillmore 7 -12 -10 82 Hoffman Grant 6 -5 -06 54 Cloquet Carlton 7 -20 -04 114 Hopkins Hennepin 10 -19 -10 7 Cohasset Itasca 1 -22 -02 21 Hoyt Lakes St. Louis 4 -8 -03 119 Columbia Heights Anoka 11 -17 -10 50 International Falls Koochiching 5 -28 -04 40 Coon Rapids Anoka 2 -17 -04 39 Kent Wilkin 1 -1 -04 48 Crookston Polk 5 -25 -04 65 La Prairie Itasca 6 -6 -05 87 Crystal Hennepin 9 -19 -06 106 Lester Prairie McLeod 10 -13 -09 76 Dassel Meeker 4 -3 -06 44 Luverne Rock 4 -13 -04 67 Dayton Hennepin 6 -14 -05 38 Mahtomedi Washington 12 -3 -03 Minnesota Communities with Tobacco -Free Parks, sorted alphabetically Map # Community County Adoption Date Map 0 Community . ... Date • 1 Maple Grove Hennepin 1 -1 -93 45 Shoreview Ramsey 5 -3 -04 61 Maplewood Ramsey 1 -24 -05 98 Silver Bay Lake 5 -9 -07 47 Marshall Lyon 5 -17 -04 116 Silver Lake McLeod 11 -15 -10 74 Mendota Heights Dakota 3 -6 -06 20 Spicer Kandiyohi 4 -2 -03 107 Minneapolis Hennepin 5 -5 -10 86 Spring Lake Park Anoka 7 -17 -06 122 Minnetonka Hennepin 2 -14 -11 124 Spring Park Hennepin 5 -2 -11 51 Monticello Wright 6 -14 -04 9 St. Cloud Stearns 5 -13 -02 118 Mora Kanabec 11 -16 -10 92 St. Francis Anoka 1 -2 -07 42 Morris Stevens 3 -9 -04 30 St. Paul Ramsey 7 -1 -03 84 Mounds View Ramsey 6 -27 -06 10 Virginia St. Louis 5 -31 -02 34 Mountain Iron St. Louis 8 -18 -03 125 Waseca Waseca 5 -3 -11 24 New Brighton Ramsey 5 -27 -03 91 Wendell Grant 12 -4 -06 123 New Richland Waseca 4 -11 -11 101 West St. Paul Dakota 4 -14 -08 69 New York Mills Otter Tail 8 -8 -05 71 Wheaton Traverse 1 -26 -06 81 North St. Paul Ramsey 5 -16 -06 100 White Earth Becker 8 -16 -07 36 Nwd Young America Carver 9 -22 -03 79 Williams Lake of the Woods 4 -10 -06 109 Orono Hennepin 8 -24 -10 29 Willmar Kandiyohi 6 -16 -03 6 Owatonna Steele 12 -11 -01 99 Windom Cottonwood 7 -17 -07 68 Parkers Prairie Otter Tail 7 -18 -05 105 Winthrop Sibley 10 -5 -09 52 Pelican Rapids Otter Tail 6 -29 -04 58 Wolverton Wilkin 10 -12 -04 111 Pine City Pine 9 -2 -10 104 Woodbury Washington 3 -25 -09 121 Pipestone Pipestone 2 -7 -11 16 Zimmerman Sherburne 3 -17 -03 112 Plato McLeod 10 -12 -10 - = ' 37 Plymouth Hennepin 10 -28 -03 A Rock County Rock 5 -18 -04 35 Prinsburg Kandiyohi 9 -9 -03 B Three Rivers Park Dist. Hennepin 1 -6 -05 49 Ramsey Anoka 5 -25 -04 C Anoka County Anoka 7 -12 -05 4 Richfield Hennepin 9 -1 -01 D I Washington County Washington 5 -23 -06 60 Robbinsdale Hennepin 12 -7 -04 E Olmsted County Olmsted 1 -23 -07 2 Rochester Olmsted 11 -1 -00 F Dakota County Dakota 5 -22 -07 103 Rosemount Dakota 12 -16 -08 G Lower Sioux Redwood 5 Roseville Ramsey 12 -1 -01 H Ramsey County Ramsey 05 -13 -08 97 Round Lake Nobles 5 -8 -07 1 Scott County Scott 05 -26 -09 • 13 Sartell Stearns 10 -28 -02 1 Lac qui Parle County Lac qui Parle 03 -01 -11 33 Savage Scott 7 -15 -03 Frequently Asked Questions about Tobacco -Free Policies for Park Areas in Minnesota What is current Minnesota state law on In addition to signs, communities notify their residents io smoking outdoors? a variety of ways: local media, newsletters, policy There is currently no state law that regulates tobacco reminder cards, recreation brochures, policy statements use in outdoor areas. sent to sports associations, and coaches' trainings. Are local governments able to enact Are existing policies working? policies restricting tobacco use? Yes! According to a 2004 University of Minnesota survey Neither federal nor state law prohibits local governments of Minnesota park directors in cities with such policies, from regulating tobacco use outdoors.' 88% of park directors reported no change in park usage (no loss of park users), 71% reported less smoking in What is the difference between a park parks, and 58% reported cleaner park areas. policy and an ordinance? What effect do tobacco -free park policies In general, park policies are rules regarding city or have on youth? county -owned park property that are established by Research has not been completed on this particular local park boards and are often approved by city councils or county boards. Generally, those who ignore topic, but in general, tobacco -free policies help prevent park policies do not receive a fine, but are asked to Youth tobacco use, particularly by establishing tobacco - refrain from using tobacco or leave the premises. free community norms and by providing adults the opportunity to be tobacco -free role models throughout Ordinances are local government enactments that the community. regulate people or property and carry a penalty such as What other benefits result from tobacco - a fine for violations. Ordinances often on inate from a recommendation passed by the park board free policies? Cigarette filters are not biodegradable, so they do not For both park policies and ordinances, tobacco use is decay and cannot be absorbed by the environment. prohibited on park property. policy reduces park and beach litter and protects toddlers from ingesting filters that are discarded. In Should a policy cover all property and Minnesota, smoking - related debris accounted for 62% of activities or just youth events? total debris during a 2005 coastal cleanup. In Minnesota, both types of policies exist, but the recent trend is toward "all property" policies because they may Will policies keep some people from using be simpler for citizens to understand, rather than to public park and recreation areas? determine which activities qualify as "youth events." Tobacco -free policies for park areas ensure that all citizens have a healthy recreational environment. How do other Minnesota communities People go to parks to exercise or relax, not to use enforce their policies? tobacco. Smokers work, eat, shop, travel, and reside in Minnesota communities with tobacco -free park policies smoke -free environments every day. No court has post signs in their park areas that announce the policy. determined that smoking is a constitutionally protected These signs provide communities with the ability to rely right. - on community and self- enforcement. Many tobacco users look for "no tobacco" signs. These signs empower Aren't tobacco -free policies for parks a everyone using the parks to provide friendly reminders needless regulation? about the policy to violators. Signs also help to eliminate These policies are similar to those prohibiting alcohol the need for any law enforcement presence. The and litter or requiring that pets be leashed. It is the majority of Minnesota communities with policies have duty of policy makers to enact policies that protect the utilized Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation's free signs. health of their citizens. 3 Perry, C. (1999). Creating Health Behavior Change: How to Develop Community- • Wide Programs for Youth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. t Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch. (5/4/00). Legal opinion letter to Peter 4 The Ocean Conservancy. (2006). International Coastal Cleanup 2005 Minnesota Vogel. Summary Report. [Online]. Available: http: / /www,coastalcleanup.org. 2 League of Minnesota Cities. (2003). Handbookfor Minnesota Cities. [On[ ine]. 5 Tobacco Control Legal Consortium. (2004). "Legal Authority to Regulate Smoking Available: http:// www. Imnc .org/handbook/chapterO7.pdf. and Common Legal Threats and Challenges." May 2007 6 z UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH SCHOOL OF KINESIOLOGY Division of Epidemiology & Community Health Division of Recreation & Sport Studies 1300 S. Second Street #300 1900 University Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55454 Minneapolis, MN 55455 TOBACCO -FREE PARKS AND RECREATION STUDY Summary of Findings Park areas in Minnesota are used regularly by state residents. Tobacco use restrictions in outdoor environments such as parks and recreation areas are being established in Minnesota and other states across the U.S. The purpose of this study is to describe the support for tobacco -free park policies in Minnesota. To learn more about the public's perceptions of these policies, we conducted a survey of Minnesota residents. We also interviewed park and recreation professionals to ask specific questions about tobacco -free policies in Minnesota. Is secondhand smoke a problem? Yes. Secondhand smoke is a recognized cause of acute and chronic diseases in nonsmokers, and is a major source of indoor air pollution. Secondhand smoke is also responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 38,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmoking individuals each year in the United States. The most effective approach to reducing secondhand smoke exposure is to establish smoke -free environments. Research has suggested that the adoption of smoke -free policies creates a change in social norms around smoking, helps smokers reduce consumption or quit, and helps keep youth from starting. Public support for tobacco -free parks • A survey was sent to Minnesota residents by mail in summer 2004. Of the 1,500 respondents, 75% had used any park area in the past month. Overall, 70% of those surveyed supported tobacco -free policies for outdoor park and recreation areas. The attitude of Twin Cities metro area residents was not different from residents living in other parts of the state. Respondents expressed support for tobacco -free policies to • Reduce litter in park grounds. • Avoid the health effects of secondhand smoke. Preferences for tobacco -free park • Discourage youth smoking. policies among Minnesota residents, 2004 • Establish positive role models for youth. • Promote community well- being. Prohibit all fortes of 9% tobacco NL Policy components Prohibit tobacco in all We also asked residents about the outdoor areas 53 components of tobacco -free park policies Prohibit tobacco during 81% (shown, right). Most people supported strong youth oriented events policies that prohibit tobacco use in youth Prohibit tobacco in outdoor ; areas, and asking policy violators to leave areas used by youth 8 % park areas. Just over half (53 %) of Enforce policy by asking 9�k respondents supported the prohibition of violators to leave i tobacco use in all parks at all tunes. Smokers Enforce policy by giving 64 °h were the only group generally less supportive violators afine Of these policies. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Golfers Thirty -five percent of our sample were golfers. Most golfers (81%) were non - smokers, and 74% of non- smoking golfers supported tobacco -free park policies. We found that being a golfer did not make a difference in support for tobacco -free policies, but being a smoker did. How do park staff in communities with an existing park policy feel about the policy? In the summer of 2004, we interviewed 257 park directors from cities and counties in Minnesota's 200 largest cities. Overall, 70 communities reported a tobacco -free policy, which represents 36% of communities surveyed. Park directors with policies had positive experiences, as most reported that park • policies were "not difficult" to pass, and 90% would recommend such a policy to other communities. Changes after implementation When park directors were asked about changes after tobacco -free policy adoptions: • 58% reported less litter in park areas. • 74% reported no problems with policy violators. • 88% reported no changes in park usage. • For those reporting a change in park use following the policy, 71% reported an increase in usage. Difficulty in passing a tobacco -free • Publicity about the policy was reported to be adequate (86 %), park policy, Minnesota 2004 and few (7 %) reported any negative publicity. Not at all Enforcement difficult - 51 Not very Enforcement was an area of worry for nearly all park directors without a difficult - 37% policy. However, in communities with a policy, few park directors (26 %) reported compliance problems. Staffing was an issue, as 74% reported too few staff to enforce the policy and /or monitor all park areas. Park director support Out of the 257 park directors interviewed, nearly all personally somewhat �dlffio - 9% supported tobacco -free policies. Reasons for their support included • 96% wanted to establish positive role models for youth. very difficult- 3% • 89% wanted to promote community well- being. • • 92% wanted to reduce youth opportunity to smoke. • 92% wanted to avoid litter from cigarette butts. Major Conclusions: u The majority of Minnesotans support tobacco -free park and recreation policies. ❑ Park staff have experienced few problems and many benefits with the policies, and overwhelmingly recommend tobacco -free policies to other communities. This study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, Schools of Public Health and Kinesiology, in partnership with Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation and the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, and supported by the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco. For more information, contact study coordinator Liz Klein at klein L(a or call (612) 626 -1799. P' / ti n �AA000 - Furc • YOUTH RECRIArlo* wvvw.orsrrnn.orp December 2005 • � ';aRA(CO IAEF T?U7N RCC RF�TION City -Owned Outdoor Recreational Facilities Model Tobacco -Free Policy Section 1: Rationale WHEREAS, the City believes that tobacco use in the proximity of children and adults engaging in or watching outdoor recreational activities at City -owned or operated facilities is detrimental to their health and can be offensive to those using such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has a unique opportunity to create and sustain an environment that supports a non - tobacco norm through a tobacco -free policy, rule enforcement, and adult -peer role modeling on City -owned outdoor recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the City believes parents, leaders, and officials involved in recreation are role models for youth and can have a positive effect on the lifestyle choices they make; and WHEREAS, the tobacco industry advertises at and sponsors recreational events to foster a connection between tobacco use and recreation; and WHEREAS, cigarettes, once consumed in public spaces, are often discarded on the ground requiring additional maintenance expenses, diminish the beauty of the City's recreational facilities, and pose a risk to toddlers due to ingestion; and WHEREAS, the City Park & Recreation Board determines that the prohibition of tobacco use at the City's recreational facilities serves to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of our City. THEREFORE, be it resolved that tobacco use is prohibited in outdoor recreational facilities. No person shall use any form of tobacco at or on any City -owned or operated outdoor recreational facilities, including the restrooms, spectator and concession areas. These facilities include [insert specific facilities here, e.g. playgrounds, athletic fields, beaches, aquatic areas, parks, and walking /hiking trails]. Section 2: Enforcement 1. Appropriate signs shall be posted in the above specified areas. 2. The community, especially facility users and staff, will be notified about this policy. 3. Staff will make periodic observations of recreational facilities to monitor for compliance. 4. Any person found violating this policy may be subject to immediate ejection from the recreation facility for the remainder of the event. Section 3: Effective Date This policy statement is effective immediately upon the date of adoption, which is , 20_ • Appropriate City Official Date 7 • r ip PLYMOUTH, MN PARKS AND RECREATION SUBJECT Plymouths Parks and Recreation Tobacco -Free Policy POLICY STATEMENT The City of Plymouth Parks and Recreation Department is committed to the quality of life for all residents, therefore, we believe that: 1. Tobacco product use in the proximity of children, youth and adults engaging in or watching recreational activities is unhealthy and detrimental to the health of others. 2. Tobacco products once consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground, thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem. 3. As parents, leaders, coaches, and officials we are thought of as role models, and the use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. TOBACCO —FREE FACILITIES No person shall use tobacco products on city-owned parkland, park facilities, open space or joint city/school district properties, except within the confines of a vehicle in a designated parking area. COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES The emphasis on enforcing he Tobacco -Free ark policy is through voluntary compliance: 9 P P Y 9 1. Appropriate city-owned parkland, park facilities, open space or joint city/school district properties will be signed. 2. Plymouth Park and Recreation staff will meet with activity organizations and /or leaders or coaches to discuss the policy and to distribute flyers with the "Tobacco Free" regulations. 3. Plymouth Park and Recreation staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. 4. Plymouth Park and Recreation will take an active role to encourage the surrounding communities to adopt the "Tobacco Free" policy, so that we may act as a united front to ensure the health and wellbeing of our community. • Date of Adoption: 10/28/03 Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board . Maple Grove, MN Policy for Usage of Public Parks, Recreation Facilities and Equipment General Regulations Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board is committed to providing quality leisure opportunities that meet the interest and needs of all City residents. This section of the policy governs general regulations so as to ensure the proper use of all parks and recreation facilities and so that all residents may equally enjoy their visit. 1. All activities and events held at a park or recreation facility must comply with all City Codes and regulations that apply. 2. All activities must be for wholesome leisure time activities. 3. Tobacco use is prohibited at all public buildings, park property and ISD #279 property operated by the Board through a joint powers agreement. 4. Alcoholic beverages are prohibited except upon Board approval. The Board will consider requests for alcoholic beverages only from clubs, charities, religious groups and other non -profit organizations whose activities are significantly conducted in the City of • Maple Grove. Persons interested in this request must review City Code 22 -66 with staff. 5. The sale of articles, items or services is prohibited except upon Board approval. Persons interested in this request must review City Code 22 -65 with staff. 6. Gambling of any kind including but not limited to bingo, pull -tabs and raffles may not be conducted without approval from Park Board and demonstration of compliance with all City and State Codes. 7. All outdoor events must take place between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. An event may extend beyond Park curfew times, only upon approval and written on the permit. Consideration for extended use will be based on adequate supervision and safety of participants. 8. Users must place all trash in designated garbage cans. Events requiring additional garbage pick -up other than the routine maintenance may be assessed `a service fee. 9. Items brought onto the park property for temporary use must be delivered and removed or properly disposed of by park user; nothing can be left in the park overnight without prior approval. Approved 11/20/03. City of • Champlin Park & Recreation �= Tobacco-Free Park System Policy 1. Guideline Statement City of Champlin Parks and Recreation Tobacco -Free Policy is designed to protect the health, welfare, and safety of our park patrons. 2. Policy Statement The City of Champlin is committed to the quality of life for all residents, therefore, we believe that: • Tobacco product use in the proximity of children, youth and adults engaging in or watching recreational activities is unhealthy and detrimental to the health of others. • Tobacco products consumed in public spaces are often discarded on the ground, thus posing a risk of ingestion to toddlers and causing a litter problem. • As parents, leaders, coaches, and officials, we are thought of as role models and the • use of tobacco products around youth has a negative effect on their lifestyle choices. 3. Tobacco -Free Facilities The City of Champlin does not allow the use of tobacco products on City -owned park land, recreational facilities, City facilities, and open space. 4. Compliance Procedures The emphasis on enforcing the Tobacco -Free parks and recreation policy is through voluntary compliance: • Appropriate City -owned park land, recreational facilities, open space will be signed. • City of Champlin staff will meet with activity organizations and \ or leaders or coaches to discuss the policy and to distribute flyers with the "Tobacco Free" regulations. • City staff will make periodic observations of activity sites to monitor compliance. 5. Adoption date: May 10 2004 . ORDINANCE NO. 310, 2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE Amending Chapter 10 Adding Section 10.67 "Smoke Free Environment" The City Council for the City of Golden Valley hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. City Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by adding Section 10.67, "Smoke Free Environment" to read as follows: Section 10.67. Smoke Free Environment. Subdivision 1. Findings and Purpose. The inhalation of secondhand tobacco smoke has been documented as hazardous to human health by the American Medical Association, the U.S. Surgeon General the National Institute on Occupational Safety Y and Health, the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Toxicology Program, and the World Health Organization. Therefore, the purpose of this Section is to: A. Protect the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens by increasing the ability of all citizens to breathe safe and uncontaminated air; B. Affirm that the necessity to breathe safe and uncontaminated air takes priority over the desire to smoke; and C. Protect vulnerable populations including employees, children, the elderly, and those with chronic health conditions. Subdivision 2. Deflni ' do ns. For the ur ose of this Section, the following terms s c o e P p , g are defined as follows: A. "Food Establishment" — Any establishment, however designated, engaged in the preparation or serving of food for consumption either on or off the premises; or anywhere consumption of food occurs on the premises, B. "Liquor Establishment" — An establishment that has an On Sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.403, as amended from time to time, or an On Sale intoxicating liquor license issued pursuant to Minnesota Statues Section 340A.404, as amended from time to time. C. "Other Person in Charge" — The agent of the Proprietor authorized to perform administrative direction to and general supervision of the activities within a public place or place of work at any given time. D. "Place of Work" -- Any location at which two or more individuals perform any type of a service for consideration of payment under any type of employment relationship, including but not limited to an employment relationship with or for a private p g_ p p corporation, partnership, individual, or government agency. This term includes any location where two or more individuals gratuitously perform service for which individuals are ordinadl aid. Examples of a lace of work include but are not limited to an office, Yp P P c , a public conveyance, a factory, a warehouse, or a similar place of work. E. "Proprietor'— The party, regardless of whether the party is owner or lessee of • the place of work or public place, who ultimately controls, governs, or directs the activities within the place or work or public place. The term does not mean the owner of the property unless the owner ultimately controls, governs, or directs the activities within the public place. The term "Proprietor" may apply to a corporation as well as an individual'. F. "Public Place" — Any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work, including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public conveyances, educational facilities other than public schools, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, arenas, meeting rooms, and common areas of rental apartment buildings. G. "Smoking" -- The inhaling, exhaling, or combustion of any pipe, cigarette, cigar, tobacco product, weed, plant, or any other similar article. Smoking includes possessing or carrying a lighted pipe, cigarette, cigar, or any other lighted smoking equipment. Subdivision 3. Smoking Restrictions. A. Smoking is prohibited in the following locations: 1. Public places and places of work, including both indoor and outdoor dining areas of liquor and food establishments, 2. Within twenty -five (25) feet of entrances, exits, open windows, and ventilation intakes of public places and places of work; 3. Within twenty -five (25) feet of any outdoor dining area at any liquor or food establishment; and • 4. Public parks and recreation facilities. B. Exceptions. The prohibitions of this Section shall not apply to the following: 1. Private residences; 2. Privately rented sleeping rooms in hotels and motels; 3. Locations where smoking is expressly authorized by State or Federal law or rule; 4. Motor vehicles; and 5. The use of tobacco as part of a recognized religious ritual, activity, or ceremony. Subdivision 4. Responsibilities of Proprietors. The proprietor or other person in charge of a public place, place of work, liquor establishment, or food establishment shall: A. Post "No Smoking" signs that comply with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act Rules, Minnesota Rules, part 4620.0500 as amended from time to time; B. Ensure that ashtrays, lighters, and matchbooks are not provided in areas where smoking is prohibited; C. Ask any person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited to refrain from smoking and, if the person does not refrain from smoking after being asked to do so, take the appropriate action to remove the person from the premises. Appropriate action shall include calling the Golden Valley Police Department for assistance. • D. Failure to comply with this Subdivision shall constitute grounds for revocation of any food, liquor, or other business license held by the establishment. Subdivision 5. Retaliation Prohibited. No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire, or in any manner retaliate against, any employee, applicant for employment, or customer because the employee, applicant or customer exercises any right to a smoke -free environment afforded by this ordinance or other law. Subdivision 6. Private Prohibitions. Nothing in this Section prevents the proprietor or other person in charge of any place, including, without limitation, any residence, motor vehicle, or outdoor space, from prohibiting smoking in any such place. Subdivision 7. Employees' Rights Preserved. An employee who consents to work in a setting where an employer allows smoking does not waive or otherwise surrender any legal rights the employee may have against the employer or any other party. Subdivision 8. Other Laws. This Section is intended to complement the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, Minnesota Statues, Sections 144.411 to 144.417, as amended from time to time. Nothing in this ordinance authorizes smoking in any location where smoking is prohibited or restricted by other laws. • Subdivision 9. Severability. If any portion of this Section is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall be considered severable and shall be given effect to the maximum extent possible. Subdivision 10. Effective Date. The provisions of this Section shall become effective March 31, 2005. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code including Penalty for Violation" and Section 10.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Adopted by the City Council this 19th day of October, 2004 /s /Linda R. Loomis Linda R. Loomis, Mayor ATTEST: /s /Donald G. Taylor Donald G. Taylor, City Clerk • ■ ■ E nf orc ' ing and P. Your Tobacco -Free Park Pol • A well publicized policy informs park users about the reasons why the policy has been adopted and helps enforce the policy by reducing violations. Let Community Members Know ® Post Signs 2 %, About the Policy The most important way to In addition to posting signs, park and recreation staff has used a variety publicize your tobacco -free policy is of means to educate citizens about their tobacco free policies: by posting signs. • Staff notification of the new policy and setting procedures for If you have not done �o-,Rff handling violations. l so already, contact . Bookmarks or small notification cards explaining the policy Tobacco -Free Youth distributed by park staff or community members to park Recreation to order �. metal tobacco -free signs. users. • Articles in a local or regional newspaper, as the result of a The following locations are news release or reporters' coverage of city council meetings. suggested places for posting your tobacco -free signs: • Park and recreation department and city newsletters. • • Fencing around playgrounds • Recreation program brochures, catalogs, and announcements* and fields • Rulebooks or policy statements that are distributed to sports • Backstops league administrators, coaches, officials, parents, and • Picnic shelters participants. • Restrooms • Concession stands • Other fact sheets or educational articles about tobacco and • Parking lot entrances secondhand smoke distributed at coaches' meetings, in • Beach entrances mailings, or through newsletters. • Lifeguard stands • Hiking trail entrances • Postings on the recreation department's or city's website. • Skating rink warming houses • Public address announcements at recreation events, or public service announcements on local radio stations or public access cable channels. M Ask for Assistance! • Kick -off celebration or community event with tobacco -free pledges, activities, etc. Potential dates for this event: These groups will assist you in March /April —Kick Butts Day; May 31 —World No Tobacco Day; publicizing your tobacco free policy: Thursday prior to Thanksgiving —Great American Smoke Out. • Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation, (651) 646 -3005, ter @ansrmn.orq Please note: computer artwork files are available from TFYR • Your local tobacco -free coalition for the tobacco free sign image. • • Your local public health agency 151� 18 • S ig ns! Fr a e Minnesota cities that adopt comprehensive . -- tobacco -free policies for their recreational facilities and park property can order FREE metal 12" x 18" tobacco -free signs from TFYR to help with policy implementation. 4 d To qualify for the signs, the tobacco -free policy must include: No • A list of all the facilities it covers Tobacco Use • A statement that all forms of tobacco On This use are prohibited Park Property • An enforcement plan that includes a) rtiawraYou. : user and staff notification; and b) signage. • Tobacco -Free Signs Please contact Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation to find out how a tobacco -free policy for parks and outdoor recreational facilities can benefit your community. For technical assistance in policy development and suggestions for tobacco prevention strategy implementation, contact: Brittany McFadden, Program Director Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation 2395 University Ave. West, Suite 310 St. Paul, MN 55114 -1512 (651) 646 -3005; bhm ansrmn.org I �OBACtO - FREE . YOUTH RECREATION .r;vd.tUb3CGUfrP.�pdrkS.Org 19 Please contact the people listed below to find out how a • tobacco free policy for outdoor recreational facilities can benefit your community. For suggestions or feedback from communities who have implemented tobacco free policies, contact: Plymouth Parks & Recreation Department Diane Evans, Supt. of Recreation 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 (763) 509 -5220; devans @ci.plymouth.mn.us Coon Rapids Parks & Recreation Department Bruce Thielen, Public Works Director 1831 — 111 Ave. NW Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (763) 767 -6578; thielen @ci.coon - rapids.mn.us Morris Community Education • Cindy Perkins, Director 600 Columbia Ave. Morris, MN 56267 (320) 589 -4394; cperkins @maes.morris.k12.mn.us Grand Rapids Parks & Recreation Department Dale Anderson, Director 420 N. Pokegama Ave. Grand Rapids, MN 55744 (218) 326 -2500; danderson @ci.grand - rapids.mn.us • 20 BROOKLYN CENTER community • umfin com mt es Umin . barriers Brooklyn Center Schools — ISD 286 07 January 2011 Dear Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Commission: I am writing in support of tobacco -free park and recreational areas in the city of Brooklyn Center. A tobacco -free policy sends a clear message that we care about the health of the community, especially our youth. Both Earle Brown Elementary School and Brooklyn Center High School are in close proximity to Brooklyn Center city parks. Many of our students and families use these parks. Since our school district already prohibits tobacco use at our buildings and grounds, including the playground and athletic fields, a city -wide policy will create a consistent tobacco -free policy for all park and recreational facilities in our community. Tobacco use not only exposes participants and spectators to the harmful effects of • secondhand smoke, but it is also a nuisance and safety concern. We strive to teach our students the value of a clean, healthy community by not littering, and the tobacco -free policy will help reduce litter and support the healthy message that we teach. Tobacco use in a park setting also sends a negative message to our youth that tobacco use is an acceptable behavior within our community. I encourage you to prohibit tobacco use at all city -owned parks and recreational facilities. Thank you for considering a tobacco -free policy. Sincerely Keit Lester Superintendent Brooklyn Center Schools - ISD 286 • Brooklyn Center Schools District 286 6500 Humboldt Ave. N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 p!(763)560 -2120 f.(763)450 -3477 www.bro okcntr.k 12.mn.us American • Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Committee Cancer 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 November 16, 2010 Dear Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Committee, On behalf of the American Cancer Society Midwest Division, I am pleased to submit this letter of support for the proposal to prohibit tobacco us on all park land and outdoor recreational facilities owned by the city of Brooklyn Center. The American Cancer Society (ACS) is dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy and services. One third of all cancer deaths are caused by tobacco. Minnesota needs to see a significant reduction in the number of people who smoke. The experience of other states suggest that our best hope lies in a comprehensive approach, which includes statewide and local prevention programs, strong youth access laws, cessation programs, counter- marketing campaigns, local tobacco control ordinances and an increase in the tobacco excise tax. Providing smoke free parks and recreational settings for youth is in keeping with a comprehensive approach to tobacco control and will serve your community well in • snaking it ahealthier place for youth. Together with other supporters, I am confident this initiative will be a success. This proposal is a reasonable policy measure that will send a positive, consistent message to youth and others within your community. We look forward to working with community members and organizations; on this important community initiative and anticipate that experience gained will be of assistance to the American Cancer Society in its own mission. Respectfully submitted, Sara Mannetter American Cancer Society Midwest Division, Inc. MN Grassroots Advocate American Heart I American Stroke Heart and Stroke. You're the Cure. Association. Association. Learn and Live® November 17, 2010 Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Commission Members: I am writing to you to express the support of the American Heart Association for a tobacco free policy for the Brooklyn Center park and recreation facilities. The American Heart Association has an impact goal to improve the cardiovascular health of all Americans by 20 percent while reducing deaths by car - diovascular diseases by 20 percent by the year 2020. Because tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor for such things as heart disease, stroke, and heart attack, promoting policies that discourage the use of to- bacco products across all sectors of our society is a very important component of the work we do. Removing tobacco use from park and recreation facilities is important for several reasons. For starters, passing a policy would protect park patrons from second hand smoke. Perhaps more importantly, it is vital that we send consistent messages about health and tobacco use to the young people who are using • the parks. When we encourage kids to be active, participate in sports and use the parks we are sending them positive messages about their health. It becomes more difficult to send those messages when others using the same space are using tobacco products. Making the non -use of tobacco a cultural norm in your city will help make it less likely that kids will start smoking in the first place. Finally, it is important that the prohibition on tobacco use be consistent across the city to include all parks, recreation facilities and open space owned by the city. This would avoid confusion among pa- trons and would be most effective in sending the positive health messages to young people that we are trying to communicate. Sincerely, Rachel Callanan, JD Regional Vice President of Advocacy —MN and WI American Heart Association American Heart Association • MN Advocacy Department • 4701 West 77`h Street • Edina, MN 55435 Phone: (952) 835 -3300 • www.heart.org(mnadvocacy Hennepin County Human Se and Pu blic H Department Office of the Area Director 612- 348 -4464 Phone 41 300 South 6'" Street (MC 150) 612 -348 -2856 Fax Minneapolis, MN 55487 www.hennepin.us January 4, 2011 Jim Glasoe Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Commission 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Glasoe: am writing in support of the proposed tobacco -free ordinance you will be discussing and encourage you to consider making all park venues tobacco- free. Our department is a leader in promoting healthy youth development. As such, we work to prevent youth tobacco use, reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, and promote positive adult role modeling. By supporting a comprehensive tobacco -free policy that includes your entire park system, Brooklyn Center can send a clear message that the community cares - • about the health of its youth and wants them to make positive lifestyle decisions. Such a policy will ensure that coaches, parents, and all adults can be positive role models by not using tobacco in any parks and recreational areas: Tobacco use not only exposes participants and spectators to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, but it is also a nuisance and safety concern. The litter caused by tobacco use diminishes the beauty of the Brooklyn Center park system and can be accidentally ingested by young children. Our recreation areas should be places where we can go to improve our health and fitness, or just relax in a clean and healthy environment. We encourage you to make all Brooklyn Center park district venues tobacco -free. Sincerely, Todd Monson Public Health Director • Stte Schettle, L liief' fcxe:r_titive C.)Flic•er } , n' 1.100 fif7dward Sweet NE Suite 21100 s Miuuc,j3xtxtis, MN :i i ! 13 • tt� . 11.1 I,17I(.Af., iC)(17.:'1y P: 632 - 623.2" "5 C'.612- 623 -2888 k,x - �Y�S';t'.ilit tfQtlY)CCClrti.t'Ultl November 17, 2010 Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Cominission 6301 Shingle Creek: Pkwy Brooklyn Center, ML N 55430 To Whom It May Concern. The Twin Cities Medical Society (TCMS) has been a longstanding supporter of smoke -free policies because, as physicians, we understand the harmful effects that exposure to secondhand smoke has on our patients. I am writing to you today, as president of the TCIVIS, voicing our support of .a comprehensive tobacco - free policy in parks in the city of Blaine. As a healtli care organization representing over 6000 physicians, TCMS is very concerned about the harmful health effects experienced by those who are exposed to secondhand smoke, especially children. Making all parks and recreational settings tobacco S g co fr�,e eliminates everyone's ex exposure to secondhand smoke p , a Group ] A carcinogen The I g e is no safe level of human exposure to these 'll • h types of cancer causing chemicals. Tobacco free park policies help create a safe environment and one where adults model and promote a healthy lifestyle for our youth who are looking to us to set standards and serve as examples for desired behavior, Tobacco free parks will not only help set the community norm that tobacco use is unacceptable they will also help reduce youth tobacco use in a community. Tobacco free parks will have both inun.ediate and long -term health benefits for individuals and our communities. We strongly encourage your support of a comprehensive tobacco free parks policy in Brooklyn Center. Please contact me with any questions. I can be reached at .612 623 2$$5. ; Sincerely, Edward Eblinger, MD, MSPH President, Twin Cities Medical Society • K/Legislation /Tobacco Free Parks - Blaine y Work Session Agenda Item No. 2 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 8, 2011 • TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager el FROM: Tom Bublitz, EDA/HRA Specialist " THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Business and Development Director SUBJECT: Neighborhood Stabilization Program Update and PowerPoint Presentation The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was authorized by the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). This is the first NSP phase and is referred to as NSP 1. The City of Brooklyn Center's involvement with NSP 1, through its Economic Development Authority, began in October 2008 with the approval of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County. NSP funds are similar to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in that the funds flow from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Hennepin County and then to 'participating cities with the CDBG program regulations used as the basis for the NSP program regulations. The purpose of NSP 1 is to get foreclosed housing back into occupancy and to help stabilize neighborhoods. The primary NSP 1 activity in Brooklyn Center has been the acquisition and rehabilitation of single family homes. The City, through its EDA, has partnered with the Greater • Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) to fulfill the requirements of the acquisition and rehabilitation activities ermitted b NSP 1 p Y The PowerPoint titled "Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 1) ", a copy of which is included with this memorandum, provides a summary of the current status of NSP 1 in Brooklyn Center: The acquisition and rehabilitation phase of NSP 1 is nearing completion with four of the eight single family homes acquired and rehabilitated with NSP 1 funds complete and the remaining g Y q P g four nearing' completion within the next few weeks. The next and final phase of the NSP 1 program addresses marketing and sales activities. This final phase will endeavor to match qualified buyers with the rehabilitated homes. The PowerPoint provides more detailed information on the requirements of these sales and marketing efforts. Finally, the PowerPoint provides some before and after photos of the four homes completed along with information on some of the rehabilitation standards required by NSP 1. Staff will be prepared to present the NSP 1 PowerPoint at the June 13, 2011 work session. Council Goals: • 3. We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life andpreserves thepublic trust 1 2r zw nron C)(": O r mr LLI zlkk, Fkv- wil U)CI, NEIGHBRRHRRD STABILIZATIQN PRORRAM f: Neighborhood Stabilization Program ( NSP) authorized by the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 ( HERA) NSP funds considered Community Development Block Grant (CDBG ) funds for purposes of implementation and regulations. NSP Goal Get Foreclosed housing back into occupancy Neighborhood focused - areas of greatest need NSP FUNDING to ? 3._ $3 .92 Billion Nationally $38. 8 Million to Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ( MHFA) $3 .9 Million to Hennepin County from HUD and $4. 7 Million to Hennepin County from MHFA Brooklyn Center NSP 1 Allocation - $ 1,905 , 500 from Hennepin County ( $ 1,045 ,000 - HUD Direct and $ 860 , 500 - MHFA) -Lo j 0000 O N ti 0 0 (Y) "t r-i O CD O N 00 O O ti 00 C V4 Ti W 40 =X 0 z � o C ) Z p Q) > a) o U '� Q U C o 11 C LLB;, co _ C C- o Q N Q N W Co o - V o Co O co z" U n a U c a J Q- � o > o Q +-j Q 0 C •� C o o � r: I O Q = O Q cool, li Census Tracts City of Brooklyn Center Map Date: 12,'02J09 Legend NSP Tier 2 NSP Tier 'I CitvBorder NSP I TIME LINE March 2009 Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County Feb 2010 Developer Agreement with Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) Sept 2010 NSP 1 funds must be " obligated " by Subrecipient (City) March 2013 All NSP 1 funds must be spent NSP I ACQUISITION/REHABILITATION Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) purchases property (must be foreclosed and vacant) at 1% less than appraised value. Most properties purchased through First Look Program administered by Twin Cities Community Land Bank (TCCLB). GMHC remodels home pursuant to: Hennepin County Home Construction and Rehab/Standards Green communities criteria (Minnesota Housing) State building code and local codes. GREEN COMMUNITIES CRITERIA " UC # A I A1iA It'ti .A111 Green Communities Criteria 2008 is a national document developed by collaboration of housing organizations. Minnesota overlay to the Green Communities Criteria used by Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and applies to NSP 1. Examples of "overlay" requirements include: Water conserving appliances and fixtures Energy efficient rehabilitation Energy star appliances Low/no VOC adhesives and sealants Exhaust fans - bath and kitchen Proper ventilation Proper materials in wet areas. City Y of Brooklyn Center =low NSP 1 Properties _. 7000 BROOKLYN BLVD 0033 BROOKLYN BLVD ^' r N..., ^' j�u> 521 82NDAVE N e $ 5B50 KNOX AVEN I ,A r,4•-, ...,y 5030 JAMES AVEN�` •—•-^ n r 5051 FREM ONT AVE N Date: 6/2/2011 5507 EMERSON AVEN ''.5453 BRYANTAVF.N 5 S } p' ^ :53331RVING AVEN 4957 BROOKLYN BLVD�. ?. n� W � N +J 00 to 00 U QQ Cn 00 O F- ,O cn 4 � o M U) 4-j O �. m � � 70 Q o o 3::1 U Q. L LI 7o �..� ` cn O � U (n to o y O C7 O Cn C6 �} Lo '— C37 to Q ce C0 V ~ O Q a� cu > t` 00 a� a� ca LO + J qrj > o > O Q Q E- Z NSP I SA ES AND MAR I�TINR As per NSP 1 Developer Agreement, GMHC markets and sells NSP1 homes to income eligible individuals pursuant to NSP 1 requirements. GMHC will prepare a Comparative Market Analysis (CMA) on NSP 1 properties to establish pricing. As per statute, NSP 1 homes cannot be sold for more than cost of acquisition and rehabilitation . Affirmative marketing plan/strategy required . NSP 1 BUYER P, () I C UX Buyers limited to households earning 120% (or less) of the Area Median Income. A limited number of homes will be reserved for households earning 50% (or less) of Area Median Income. Buyers may be eligible for down payment and closing cost assistance and additional affordability assistance in the form of zero percent deferred loans. Buyers must qualify for and obtain a first mortgage product that is "A" or "prime" Fixed rate FHA, VA or Conventional Home must be owner occupied. Buyer must not have ownership in another property. Buyer must complete a Home Stretch homebuyer training course approved by HUD. Buyer must contribute at least $1,000 toward the down payment. I N§ P I BUY R a§§ I§TANCE Buyers eligible for down payments, closing cost and affordability assistance. Two categories of buyers established by law - 120% AMI and 50% AMI . Allocation set by Hennepin County: $551,039 (28.9%) of NSP 1 funds must be spent as 50% AMI (or less) $ 1,354,461 (71.1%) of NSP 1 funds available for 120% (or less) AMI NSP 1 BUYER A 120 % (or less) AMI Buyers Minimum assistance is $1,000 Maximum assistance for 81% to 120% AMI buyers is $7,500 <80% buyers may qualify for additional $10,000 to reach Housing ratio of 29% 50% AMI Buyers Minimum assistance is $1,000 Up to $17,500 in Homebuyer Gap Assistance Additional assistance above $17,500 may be available if necessary to bring buyers housing ratio to 29%. NSP HqM, B INPRME L ., 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person 120%AMI $70,550 80,650 90,700 100,800 108,850 116,950 125,000 133,050 80 % AMI $45,100 51,500 58,000 64,400 69,600 74,750 79,900 85,050 50% AMI $29,400 33,600 37,800 42,000 45,400 48,750 52,100 55,450 NSP HOMEBUYER AFFORDABILITY/OCCUPANCY PERIOD Buyer assistance loans are forgivable as shown by the following: Loan Amount Minimum Affordability Period Less than $15,000 Five Years $15,000 to $40,000 Ten years Over $40,000 Fifteen years REHABED PROP , _ BTI,g§ - RE §f AFTER LfruNripl:" L f rNil I I Iowa ;17 w L I r— U , _ ,Y P� ... 52162nd Ave N ee f IL t4 m 11V Otl IRA °W „q�� 1C . °s9i t A REHABED PR ERTIPS - B FqtF_ AFTER V C7 U W P C7 r) I., E.-- IJ I 1 0:171 A.eye E, 52162nd Ave N RgHABED PRRPERTIE§ - B FqRE AFT R VIE 5 x� r l f y r e s" i P i r erc �e a f Mam t 52162nd Ave N REHABED PR PERTI ES BEF RE AFTER aIT ti r- L WL I r7" -------------- C)o 52162nd Ave N II REHAB D PR PERTI RE AFT R 1: UW, I I mom ........... 52162nd Ave N REHABED PROPERTIg§ - B RE AFTER wit" . � r. --- � x w J 1� h i g 0 r - + 4957 Brooklyn Boulevard REHAPED PROPERTIE BEF— RE & AFTER r.> r � . ee.. R ,;1 cF k+a"S iY .F�$ �X I rV III 4957 Brooklyn Boulevard REHABED PRRP. ,E,RT, l,,g§, - BEFORE AFTER _ 4957 Brooklyn Boulevard t � � _ ♦ S a e • , r� r . d. �r • r � { ;e J ` n a y+ sr a , s sc+ a REHAPED PRRPERTI,,g§ - BEIF RE §f AFTg,R r r , i . 1rw all 1 e 3 5453 Bryant Ave N i REHAPE PRRPERTIES R- V B FOR & AFTER . , lilt t . �HaF ins 4. ate' o- 7 5453 Bryant Ave N i REHABED Rp P P RTIE5 B EFqR AFTER kv� '7 71 t � i t - A a 8 WIMP ! t jjt � y 4 h r 3{ 5453 Bryant Ave N � .. -* tlMNli YIIIIMI�rY� fltNftll ���I� ra.. - , , : • i. I * it a ' +bp } r�n�r��rr�rena ��■��� o�w�r�mrllulMll��m�r _, '. ���IIIIIIIIIIII��� } r At x: p • . AWA RE- A ED PROPERTIES - BEFOR & AFTER . ..k. s. I � k **v �d �r4n y A� Y 5651 Fremont Ave N REHABED PROPERTIES - BEFORE & AFTER x o „a. n n 9 Wx 5651 Fremont Ave N REHA§ ED PROPPTIE§ BEF." PR,,,E- AFTER fir i I s n v 9t f I 4 a fi r- f, rl " r W Mw 5651 Fremont Ave N Work Session Agenda Item No. 3 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 7, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: 2011 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Request for Proposals (RFP) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding request for proposals (RFP) to conduct the 2011 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study. Background: The City of Brooklyn Center has recently completed its Comprehensive Plan with one of the identified goals of "making major street corridors and other public spaces highly attractive." The plan indicates that reaching consensus on a vision for the section of Brooklyn Boulevard south of I- 694/1 -94 that would then be translated into design parameters should precede redevelopment of land area along Brooklyn Boulevard. Attached is a draft RFP that would be used to perform a corridor study to provide guidance for future transportation, redevelopment and streetscaping improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard. Funding for the RFP is proposed out of eligible Tax Increment Financing or the EDA fund balance. A broad estimate of cost for a study of this nature could range between $150,000 and $200,000. Policy Issues: Does the City Council desire to proceed with the RFP? If the Council proceeded with soliciting RFPs, consideration to proceed with the corridor study would be presented to the Council for final authorization. Council Goals: Strategic: 2. We will aggressively proceed with implementation of City's redevelopment plans 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust r ty of TER REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROJECT: 2011 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study CONTACT: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 763 -569 -3340 SUBMITTAL DATE: June 16, 2011 INTERVIEW DATE: To be Determined (if needed) PROJECT OVERVIEW The City of Brooklyn Center in cooperation with Hennepin County is issuing this request for a proposal for a corridor study along Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) from I -94 to 49'h Avenue North. The primary purpose of this corridor study is to provide guidance for future transportation, redevelopment and streetscaping improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard. The study will include a review of the following: land uses, redevelopment opportunities, traffic and transit needs, complete streets components, access management, right -of -way, frontage and/or backage road needs, safety and a discussion of environmental documentation options should the City decide to move this forward into project development. The project will develop and evaluate options for corridor transportation improvements, landscaping, streetscaping, lighting and water quality improvements. As part 'of the study process, recommendations for the following will be developed: future corridor vision; future land use map, open space and redevelopment concepts; 'future corridor concepts that include roadway geometrics improvements, transit services and facilities, access locations, trails, traffic signal locations and frontage/backage road locations; development of an official right -of -way map; and concepts for landscaping, streetscaping, lighting and water quality improvements. PROJECT BACKGROUND Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) is a minor arterial reliever that provides an alternative connection between Minneapolis and the northern suburbs. The Brooklyn Boulevard corridor within Brooklyn Center is largely developed with both residential and commercial uses intermixed throughout the corridor. 1 City of Brooklyn Center Request for Proposal- Brooklyn Boulevard As part of the City's Comprehensive plan process, conflicts were identified between the role of a minor arterial regional transportation system (CSAH 152) and local access to residents and commercial areas. In several areas of the corridor, there are single family dwellings that access directly onto the county roadway, many dwellings existing too close to the roadway given the level of traffic carried by the street. The Comprehensive - Plan identifies a number of transportation and development issues that need to be addressed as follows: • Development of a design theme for the corridor • How the design theme fits into Hennepin County Corridor Guidelines • Elimination of the remaining inappropriate single - family units along the boulevard. • Assembly and redevelopment of usable parcels into parcels large enough with proper internal circulation and site access and/or open space areas. • Intersection improvements where needed for better access. • Multi -modal and transit amenities (bus pull -offs, better bus shelters, other transit orientated design elements). • Lacking any sense of being a "complete street ". • Right -of -way impacts. • Safety, both vehicular, bicycles and pedestrians SUMMARY OF WORK TASKS The selected consultant/consultant team will complete a number of analyses to develop preferred alternatives for the future. A listing of project tasks is provided below. Attachment 1 provides a more complete description of specific activities. Task l: Project Management Task 2: Public and Agency Involvement Task 3: Corridor Vision and Goals Task 4: Corridor Issues Identification and Confirmation Task 5: Land Use Concepts and Recommendations Task 6: Roadway Concepts and Recommendations Task 7: Transit Concepts and Recommendations Task 8: Trails Concepts and Recommendations Task 9: Complete Streets Concepts and Recommendations Task 10 Preliminary Drainage Recommendations Task 11 Official Right -of -Way Map Task 12: Costs Task 13: Implementation Task 14: Report Task 15: Optional Tasks Identified by the Consultant INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED BY LOCAL AGENCIES The following will be supplied to the successful candidate: 1. Copy of the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan (2009) 2. Copy of Hennepin County Access Management Guidelines 3. Selected information from the 2030 HC -TSP forecasting model such as network and zonal topography, land use and trip generation estimates, and 2030 ADT traffic forecasts. City of Brooklyn Center 2 Request for Proposal- Brooklyn Boulevard 4. Example of Hennepin County Special Project Analysis Report (SPAR) 5. Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation System Plan (website) 6. Hennepin County Complete Streets Policy 7. Copy of Hennepin County Travel Forecast Model 8. Copy of the Hennepin County Transportation Plan 9. Copy of the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994) 10. Copy of the Brooklyn Center Proposed Urban Design Standards Study (2002) DESIRED PROJECT SCHEDULE The following table demonstrates the key milestones in the project process. 1. Award contract to successful consultant June 2011 2. Prepare public and agency involvement plan July 2011 3. Complete existing conditions analysis August 2011 4. Complete future conditions analysis October 2011 5. Develop future concepts December 2011 6. Identify preferred concepts February 2011 7. Finalize preferred concept layouts April 2012 8. Implementation plan May 2012 9. Complete plan, Presentation to City Council June 2012 The entire process is expected to take approximately twelve months to complete. PROPOSAL CONTENT The proposal shall be limited to not more than 25 pages, not including cover letter, examples of work, graphical materials (maps, pictures, drawings), resumes and items required under number six listed on the following page. The following will be considered minimum contents of the proposal: 1. A statement of the objectives, goals and tasks to show the firm's view and understanding of the proposed project. 2. A description to be provided b the firm. tion of the de y p P 3. An outline of the firm's background and experience with similar projects and a list of personnel who will work on the project. This section will detail staff training, work experience and employee category. The project manager identified in the proposal will remain in place throughout the project as long as he /she is still employed by the firm. Any changes in other key personnel assigned to the project will need written permission of the agency project manager. 4. A detailed work lan that identifies major tasks completed and a timeline for those to be com p J p tasks will be used as a scheduling and management tool. Please identify any optional work tasks in this area and in the detailed cost breakdown (see 6 below). 5. Identify the level of the sponsoring agencies participation in the contract, as well as any City of Brooklyn Center 3 Request for Proposal- Brooklyn Boulevard other services to be provided. 6. A detailed cost breakdown of the tasks to be performed with a breakout of the hours for each employee category (e.g., principal, senior engineer, technician, etc.) per work task identified. The consultant will show the hourly rate for each employee category and will also break out and any direct expenses, overhead and profit. The consultant will indicate any assumptions made (e.g. number of meetings, number of drafts, etc.) and include this information with the cost proposal. Total dollar amounts for each work task and deliverable shall be shown. Total dollar cost for the entire project should also be included. Any optional work tasks suggested by the consultant shall be indicated as such and should include the information identified above. Due to the nature of public and agency involvement, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact number of meetings that will be required before a project begins. The consultant is expected to make an educated guess at the number of these meetings in the work plan and in the cost breakdown. However, the consultant should also prepare a typical per meeting cost for the various meeting types expected as part of this project: Technical Advisory Committee /Agency Coordination Meetings, Focus Group Meetings, City Council Meetings, Business Meetings and Property Owner Meetings. Please submit the cost estimate in a separate sealed envelope. The cost estimate is not considered part of the 25 -page limit. Cost estimates should include job classification, rate, number of hours, materials, equipment, overhead and profit. It should also include information for subconsultants. CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS Perspective responders who have any questions regarding this request for proposal should submit them in writing to: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public`Works /City Engineer sillehauggei.brooklyn- center.mn.us Responses to questions will be sent out via e-mail to all firms responding to the RFP. If you wish to meet with the City or the County, please contact the following individuals: City of Brooklyn Center Steve Lillehaug Director of Public Works /City Engineer 763.569.3328 slillehauggci.brooklyn- center.mn.us , Hennepin County Robert Byers Senior Transportation Engineer Hennepin County Transportation Department — Transportation Planning Div. 612.596.0354 City of Brooklyn Center 4 Request for Proposal- Brooklyn Boulevard Robert.Byers @co.hennepin.mn.us • DELIVERY OF PROPOSALS All proposals must be sent to: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center NM 55430 763 -569 -3340 All proposals must be received no later than 10 a.m. (central time) on Thursday, May 19, 2011. Late proposals will not be considered. All costs incurred in responding to this RFP will be borne by the responder. Submit six (6) copies of the proposal, including proposed costs. Proposals are to be sealed in mailing envelopes or packages with the responder's name and address written on the outside. An authorized member of the firm must sign each copy of the proposal in ink. Cost proposals are to be put in a separate, sealed envelope. PROPOSAL EVALUATION Representatives from City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County will evaluate all responses received by the deadline. In some instances, an interview may be a part of the evaluation process. The reviewing . agencies will evaluate the submitted RFPs in four areas: project understanding /objectives; qualifications /experience of personnel working on the project;-work plan/schedule; and cost. The agencies will select a firm /team that best understands the project, can deliver the project in a timely manner, has quality personnel and can deliver the job at a reasonable and realistic cost. The selection includes all elements and will not be based solely on the lowest proposal amount. It is anticipated that the evaluation and selection will be completed by Thursday, June 9, 2011. AGENCY NOT OBLIGATED TO COMPLETE PROJECT This request for proposal does not obligate the agencies to award a contract or complete the project, and the agencies reserve the right to cancel the solicitation or parts of the solicitation if it is considered to be in their best interest. City of Brooklyn Center 5 Request for'Proposal- Brooklyn Boulevard Attachment 1 — Work Tasks Descriptions Task 1: Project Management 1.1 Administration Administration of the project will include monthly progress reports, invoicing, contract amendment requests, cost and schedule updates, billing preparation, other non - technical work, communication with the necessary project personnel and all other work to ensure all the project tasks are completed on time, within budget and in accordance with state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 1.2 General Coordination General coordination of the project will include scheduling meetings as required. The consultant will be responsible for securing locations for public open house meetings that are held outside of county or city buildings. 1.3 Quality Assurance /Quality Control The consultant will perform QA/QC functions throughout the project to ensure delivery of a quality product in a timely manner. Consistency in project management for this project is paramount. No changes in project management personnel will be made without a written notice. Conditions where changes in key personnel are unavoidable (e.g. no longer employed by the firm) are understood. Substitutions based on new projects or other additional work loads will not be favorably received. Likewise, the city and county will notify the selected consultant if there are changes in key personnel for their agencies. Deliverables: • Monthly progress and status reports • Schedule meetings • Updates to project schedule • Coordinate activities'with stakeholders via telephone, e-mail and written correspondence • Submit invoices in a timely manner Task 2: Public and Agency Involvement Public and agency involvement will be critical factors in the success of this project. A majority of the land around Brooklyn Boulevard is already developed. Projects with redevelopment components generally take additional time and effort in order to get stakeholder buy -in due to the impacts to existing properties and businesses. The selected consultant will be expected to develop a comprehensive public involvement plan that will encourage stakeholder participation in the corridor planning process. As previously indicated, consultants may wish to modify the number of meetings, by type, that are included in the descriptions below. Please note your assumptions in your detailed work plan and cost proposal. 2.1 Develop Public Involvement Plan The selected consultant will prepare a public and agency involvement plan that will get public and A -1 agency participation in the corridor study process. The consultant should look at a variety of methods for involving and informing stakeholders. Items identified by the consultant may go beyond those identified . in this RFP. 2.2 Technical Advisory Committee Meetings The consultant will hold an initial kick -off meeting to confirm the basic project objectives, solidify a work plan and obtain consensus on project elements with staff from participating agencies. On a monthly basis, the consultant will schedule, prepare for, attend and provide meeting minutes for the technical advisory committee (TAC). The TAC will consist of County, City, State, Three Rivers Park District Metro Transit and others entities as applicable. The TAC will meet monthly to discuss issues related to the corridor study, to review materials - prepared, by the consultant and to provide guidance on the study. It is assumed six to ten TAC meetings will be held. 2.3 Public Open House Meetings The consultant will conduct at least two open house meetings. The consultant will be responsible for arranging a meeting location and for mailing notices to property owners. The consultant will be responsible for preparing written and display materials. Following the meeting, the consultant will document and summarize any comments received. The consultant will also prepare responses to comments. The City and the County will review comments and responses before they are posted to the project Web site. It is assumed two open house meetings will be held with 1,000 mailings for each meeting. 2.4 City Council Meetings The consultant will attend and participate in city council meetings with Brooklyn Center to discuss the corridor study and to get council approval on the final study. It is assumed that two council meetings will be needed. TAC members will be responsible for providing regular updates to their respective councils/boards /commissions. 2.5 Agency Coordination Meetings The consultant will coordinate with federal, state, regional and local agencies as is needed to move the project forward. These meetings will be used to coordinate information relating to the project beyond the TAC meetings. The consultant will need to prepare for, attend and take minutes at these meetings. It is assumed that five additional agency meetings will be needed. 2.6 Property Owner Meetings (Residential) There are multiple existing land uses located along Brooklyn Boulevard. Issues and impacts to residential areas are different than those for commercial areas. It is likely that there will need to be separate meetings with residential areas to discuss concepts, impacts, opportunities and timing of potential changes. It is assumed that two additional meetings will need to be held with residential property owners. 2.7 Business Owner/Renter Meetings Issues and impacts are likely to vary along the corridor. It is likely that there will need to be separate meetings with the businesses clustered in the different areas to discuss concepts, impacts, opportunities and timing of potential changes. It is assumed that four additional meetings will need to be held with businesses along the corridor. A -2 2.8 Focus Group Meetings A set of focus group meetings will be held to gain an understanding of the issues along the corridor from a variety of stakeholders. Meetings with residents, businesses, freight interests, public safety, schools, etc. will be set up by the consultant. Issues noted by participants will be mapped for future use in Task 4. It is assumed that two focus meetings will be needed. 2.9 Project Mailings The consultant will be responsible for preparing, printing and mailing notices for all public meetings and for meetings with property and business owners. The City will provide a list of names and addresses. It is assumed 1,000 mailings will be needed for each meeting requiring notices mailed. 2.10 Project Newsletter The consultant will be responsible for preparing, printing and mailing a project newsletter for those along/near the corridor. The City will provide a mailing list. It is assumed that four newsletters will need to be prepared. 2.11 Project Web Site The consultant will be responsible for preparing and maintaining a project Web page on the City of Brooklyn Center's web site with project information that can be viewed and downloaded by the public. The web site for the project will be updated ,as needed. Please indicate the number of updates you anticipate based on other public /agency involvement meetings and newsletters. Deliverables: ■ Public involvement plan ■ Meeting materials (e.g., agendas, technical handouts, maps, minutes, boards, etc.) ■ Issues map ■ Mailings ■ Newsletters ■ Web site development and updates Task 3: Corridor Vision and Goals The vision and goal development for the corridor will set the tone for how the rest of the study will proceed. The corridor vision and goals define how the corridor will ultimately function and perform. The vision should reflect the transportation needs of the City and County, the economic needs of the city and it should consider the corridor's users. The vision should also reflect the corridor's cultural and environmental context. 3.1 Develop Preliminary Corridor Vision and Goals The consultant will prepare a preliminary corridor vision after meeting with technical committee members and other stakeholders. Goals will also be developed that reflect the vision and long -term needs of the corridor. The preliminary corridor vision and goals will be presented to the TAC for input and revision. 3.2 Refine Vision and Goals Based on input from the TAC the corridor vision and goals will be refined and finalized. A -3 Deliverables: ■ Draft memorandum describing corridor vision and goals ■ Final memorandum describing corridor vision and goals Task 4: Corridor Issues Identification and Confirmation Identification of issues, problems, constraints and opportunities along the corridor need to be identified and understood before alternatives can be developed to address them. This phase of the corridor study will identify and explore issues along the corridor that currently exist and are expected to occur in the future. The problem issue identification process needs to go beyond traffic and transportations issues in the corridor. The process should also identify local transportation system changes, significant land use changes, growth patterns, environmentally and culturally sensitive areas and community expectations. 4.1 Demographics The consultant will identify past development trends (employment, population and households) and predicted trends based on information from the Met Council and local agency comprehensive plans. Information from these trends will be summarized and used to gage how the corridor could change in the future. 4.2 Land Use Existing and currently planned land use along the corridor will be identified and mapped. This information will be used to show how land use currently functions and how it is expected to function in the future based on existing plans. Existing and planned land use data will be provided by the City. 4.3 Transit Brooklyn Boulevard is a unique corridor with regard to transit in Brooklyn Center. Transit service within the county is fairly well developed but safety and access issues exist. Transit service along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor is provided by Metro Transit. The consultant will inventory and map existing and planned transit facilities. Items in the inventory and mapping process will include at a minimum: existing transit routes; type of service on routes; existing park and ride locations, including number of spaces; existing bus stop locations; existing bus lane locations; planned future routes and services; planned park and ride expansions and other transit- related activities. The consultant will also provide an existing and planned conditions write -up for transit and transit- related activities along the corridor. The consultant is also expected to identify areas where there are transit needs that are currently unfilled or will be problems in the future. Proposed transit improvements need to be consistent with Metro Transit long range plans and fit within the context of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. 4.4 Trails and Sidewalks Pedestrian movement along and across portions of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor is served by a network of City trails and sidewalks. In addition, the Three Rivers Park District regional trail system crosses Brooklyn Boulevard at 55 Avenue. The consultant will inventory and map existing and planned trail and sidewalk facilities. Both City, County park district trail systems and connections will be identified. The consultant will P rovide an sidewalks including all ADA deficiencies and existing d planned conditions write-up for trails and g g p P A -4 needs. The consultant is also expected to identify areas where there are gaps in the system that need to be addressed. Existing and planned trail and sidewalk information will be provided by the cities and the county. 4.5 Safety Safe is always rim concern for local road authorities. The City f Broo Center is committed � Safety Y a primary ty yn to reducing the number of fatalities and crashes on its facilities and eliminating high - crash locations. Understanding current conditions, crash patterns and trends and how these conditions might change is critical to identifying and prioritizing improvements. The consultant will complete a safety analysis to identify crash locations, identify crash trends and identify problem areas. The consultant will need to evaluate both the number and type of crashes that are occurring in the study area. Both intersections and segments will need to be evaluated. The consultant should use the most recent five -year crash data from Mn/DOT/DPS. The consultant will map fatal and Type A injury crashes as well as high -crash locations. A write up describing overall conditions along the corridor as well as - a more in -depth review of corridor segments and intersections will need to be provided. 4.6 Access Hennepin County has developed a set of access management guidelines. These guidelines are intended to provide a balance between access, mobility and safety along important county roadways. The consultant will complete an existing access inventory that identifies public street intersections, residential driveways and commercial driveways along the corridor. Access locations will be mapped. The consultant will then develop access management strategies for the corridor that generally reflect the county's spacing guidelines. Concepts showing future access locations will need to be developed. 4.7 Traffic Traffic volumes and facility characteristics play a significant role in how well a corridor functions from both a safety and mobility perspective. To assess the current operation of Brooklyn Boulevard, a variety of traffic information needs to be assembled and analyzed. The selected consultant will need to evaluate: existing AADT, turning movement counts at key intersections, vehicle mix, -peak hour characteristics and available gaps in traffic for entering vehicles at selected locations. Areas that currently exhibit operational issues shall be identified. Recommendations for improvements will be completed after future traffic volumes have been identified. A memo documenting existing conditions will be prepared by the consultant. Future traffic and transit volumes will also need to be considered as part of this study. The selected consultant will be given the Hennepin County model to prepare future forecasts (2030) based on the currently planned land use and two roadway scenarios. A memo documenting the forecasting process and results will be prepared by the consultant. Based on the future traffic volumes, future operations must be analyzed at key intersections and along the corridor segments. Areas where existing and future operations are a problem must be highlighted and short- and long -term solutions must be identified. A memo documenting future conditions and recommended improvements will be prepared by the consultant. i A -5 4.8 Environmental and Cultural Constraints This' corridor study does not include completing a full environmental document. As potential projects move forward, a thorough environmental analysis will be completed at that time. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to obtain information, analyze it and evaluate it before a decision is reached on selecting a preferred option. In addition, there are federal statutes that can be applied such as: The Endangered Species Act, Section 4(f) /6(f), the National Historic Preservation Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and parts of the Clean Waters Act (Section 404). These statutes emphasize avoiding and minimizing impacts. There are also state statutes whose rules and guidelines should be addressed in a similar manner as the federal requirements. As stated above, a detailed environmental document will not be created .for this project. However, the plan should identify key environmental features and issues. Environmental review agencies should be contacted as part of the public participation process to provide input on key resources along the corridor that could be impacted by any of the improvements that eventually get recommended. The consultant should identify key constraints (e.g., potential historic properties, contaminated sites, park lands, wild and scenic rivers, etc.). Deliverables: ■ Technical memorandums M Task 5: Land Use Concepts and Recommendations The City of Brooklyn Center has recently completed its comprehensive plan which recognized the 1993 Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and the 1994 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study as instrumental in the positive changes-that have occurred on Brooklyn Boulevard. In particular, the reconstruction of the Boulevard north of 65 Avenue North, the redevelopment of the northeast quadrant of 69 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard ( Boulevard Market Center), and the Northwest quadrant of Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard (CVS), have resulted in establishing a new image and revitalized development within these portions of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. The Plan indicated that reaching a consensus on a vision for the section of Brooklyn Boulevard south of Interstate 694 should answer the following questions: 1. How much right of way will be needed for the reconstruction of Brooklyn Boulevard for alternate designs which focus on streetscaping, boulevard treatment, and enhanced pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use within the corridor? 2. How far should the roadway be situated from residential structures which could then be translated into development design parameters and should precede redevelopment of land alternatives along the Boulevard. The challenge recognized in the recent Comprehensive Plan Update was that the right of way corridor of Brooklyn Boulevard varies in width from 80 -95 feet in width form 59 Avenue to 63r Avenue and that many of the residential lots which front on the Boulevard have a lot depth of 135 -140 feet. A -6 The development of alternative street sections and varying widths of boulevard sections will identify the remaining land available for the following land uses: Commercial, Office, Residential, and Open Space. Deliverables: • The consultant will prepare a base map which identifies the existing site conditions, the relative land use challenges with respect to providing accessibility, parking, setbacks, and compatibility factors with the adjoining residential neighborhoods. • Two alternate land use scenarios will be developed illustrating the potential land use alternatives and street sections which will be reviewed and discussed with the TAC. The TAC will identify a preferred land use scenario. • A technical memorandum summarizing the background information for each land use scenario considered will be assembled. Screening 1 creenin criteria documenting the recommended land use scenario will be included in the technical memorandum. Task 6: Roadway Concepts and Recommendations configurations of turn lanes with and without medians. The corridor is currently four lanes with multiple gur Y to u Information gathered from the various land use scenarios will be used to develop and evaluate p to three primary roadway concept scenarios with additional select options at certain locations /intersections: existing four -lane with existing turn lanes (some areas with medians, some without), four lane with section of double turn lanes reduced to a single continuous two -way left -turn lane, and four -lane with medians /turn lanes or other option and/or combination as identified. Additionally, the consultant will make recommendations for multiple optional geometrics at each key intersection location. Other elements that must be considered in all roadway design alternatives include on/off - street bike lanes, shoulders, off street trails /sidewalks, boulevards, bus lanes /pull -pull outs, streetscaping elements, etc. The roadway concept sketches will need to be at the level of detail where rights -of -way can be p identified, setbacks and impacts to structures along the corridor can be determined, general impacts to federal and state statute issues can be documented, preliminary costs can be calculated, and traffic operations can be analyzed. Deliverables: • Roadway concept sketches and Typical Sections suitable for public display • Roadway Mn/DOT staff level approval type layout and Typical Sections (approved by both City and County) with construction limits. Layout will also be reviewed by Metro Transit for inclusion of transit improvements. ■ Technical memo outlining `impacts of the concepts and documenting the screening critera and selection process of a preferred alternative Task 7: Transit Concepts and Recommendations As previously indicated, the traffic forecasts will need to take into consideration existing transit infrastructure and planned transit infrastructure. As part of the analysis, the consultant will be asked to make recommendations about additional infrastructure (additional bus shoulder lanes, bus pull-out areas, park and ride lots, etc.) and potential service enhancements (potential local circulator, review of express service, etc.). Preliminary costs for infrastructure improvements will need to be prepared by the consultant. Consultant will need to engage Metro Transit to understand and include as appropriate transit related A -7 improvements. Deliverables: ■ Maps showing locations of existing and potential infrastructure improvements for transit related items. ■ Technical memo outlining infrastructure and service needs, recommended transit improvements and preliminary costs of infrastructure improvements. Task 8: Trail and Sidewalk Concepts and Recommendations Information gathered as part of Task 4 identified pedestrian issues. As part of this task, the consultant will develop concepts to improve and enhance trail /sidewalk usage (e.g. safety buffer between traffic and pedestrians, ADA needs, gaps in connectivity, pedestrian crossing enhancements, etc.). Additionally, an underpass /overpass option should be addressed and the feasibility of this option studied for the regional trail crossing between 55 Avenue and Highway 100. Preliminary costs for the trail improvements will need to be prepared by the consultant. Deliverables: ■ Maps showing new connections ■ Underpass /overpass option feasibility ■ Technical memo outlining rational for proposed improvements and costs of those connections Task 9: . Landscaping, Streetscaping and Complete Streets Concepts and Recommendations Brooklyn Boulevard is a gateway into the City of Brooklyn Center and the City desires to have the corridor appear welcoming for those living, working, visiting and passing through the area. A- specific task and element in obtaining this theme will be to identify and implement lowering the overhead utility lines to underground. As part of the corridor study two concepts will be developed for the overall landscaping, streetscaping and lighting (complete streets) along the corridor. The concepts that are developed for the corridor need to consider Hennepin County, Mn/DOT, City and park district design standards where appropriate. The selected concept needs to be agreeable by the jurisdictional agency where appropriate. In addition to developing an overall corridor landscape /streetscape theme, each of the "node" areas along the corridor will need some distinguishing elements to highlight their uniqueness. A concept for each "node" area will be developed based on input from staff, elected officials and other interested stakeholders. Elements in the node areas must also conform to the county guidelines previously mentioned. Possible node areas include intersections at: 65 Avenue, 63 Avenue, 61' Avenue and Admiral Lane, 58 Avenue Other node areas may be defined during preliminary design. It should be assumed up to six separate node areas will be considered for distinguishing elements. Deliverables: ■ Overall corridor landscape /streetscape concepts (two) ■ Node area concepts (one for each node area) assume up to seven separate areas. Task 10: Preliminary Drainage Recommendations The selected consultant will be required to develop a preliminary drainage design showing location and size of principal storm sewers, water quality considerations and ponding /infiltration basins A -8 locations /sizing. Other tasks include preparing a drainage area map showing drainage boundaries, coordinating with the appropriate permitting agencies to ensure permitting requirements will likely be met, and preparing a drainage report that summarizes the design and includes all supporting information. Deliverables: ■ Drainage report Task 11: Official Right -of -Way Map The selected consultant will be required to develop an Official Right -of -Way Map that will be used to identify future needed roadway, utility, streetscape and trail easements. These easement needs will be based on the preferred layout option and other needs including trails, streetscaping, drainage, etc. The map will be used to identify future easement needs and will be used to develop future right -of -way figures, sketches and descriptions. The selected consultant will need to obtain section breakdown information in the project area including right -of -way and parcel information from the County and City. The easement and right -of -way needs will be based on improvements that are mathematically tied to the established section lines and existing property lines within the project area. Deliverables: • Draft Official Map for County and City review. • Final Official Right -of -Way Map, certified and final copy on mylar and PDF in recordable form. • Prepare County Board Resolution recommending adoption of the Official Map. City and County will record the Official Map with the County Recorder's Office. Task 12: Cost Estimates As indicated in the other work tasks, cost estimates for the proposed improvements will need to be identified. Preliminary cost estimates for each concept alternative and a final cost estimate for the preferred will be prepared and presented to the TAC. The cost estimates should be made at the planning - level, based on the recommended roadway, transit, trail and landscaping concepts. Any cost sharing agreements will be reflected in the cost estimates with subtotals for each participating agency per the appropriate cost sharing policy. Deliverables: • Preliminary Cost estimates for each concept alternative • Final Cost estimate for the Preferred Alternative with cost sharing breakdown as appropriate. Task 13: Implementation The Brooklyn Boulevard corridor study needs to be a living document that can be implemented in stages. Realistically, the City and the County will not have enough funding at any one time to make all of the recommended improvements at once. The selected consultant will need to develop an implementation plan that provides for phased implementation by outlining short-, mid- and long -term improvements. In addition to making recommendations for physical improvements, the implementation plan should: identify recommendations /strategies related to policy areas; highlight areas for more in -depth evaluation; and identify potential funding strategies and steps for moving needed improvements A -9 forward, specifically to qualify for the most current future federal funding programs and timelines. Deliverables: ■ Implementation plan Task 14: Report The selected consultant will be required to prepare a final report that reflects the study process, documents important technical analyses and findings, outlines recommendations and lays out an implementation plan. A draft report will be prepared for review by the local agencies. It is anticipated that 25 copies of the draft report will need to be prepared. Comments from the agencies will be incorporated into a final report. In addition to preparing a final report, an executive summary shall also be prepared. This document should be able to stand on its own. 25 hard copies of the final report shall be provided by the consultant and 1 should be prepared electronically (pdf format). 50 hard copies of the executive summary shall be provided by the consultant and 1 should be prepared electronically (PDF format). Deliverables: ■ Draft and final reports Task 15: Optional Tasks Identified by the Consultant A -10 • Work Session Agenda Item No. 4 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 7, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer 91- SUBJECT: Designating City Commission to Provide Review and Input on the Watershed Management Plan Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding designation of City Commission(s) and/or Commissioners to provide review and input on the Watershed Management Plan for the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. Background: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions are currently developing their Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (please see the attached letter for background information). As part of the stakeholder and public input process, the watershed commission is requesting that each member City designate and task one of its existing advisory commissions to participate and provide review and input at key steps during the development of the plan. The watershed has planned approximately three input opportunities prior to approving the final draft of the plan. It is suggested that the input process be incorporated into the advisory commission's regular meeting schedule. However, at the May 8, 2011, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to solicit volunteers from the Planning Commission and/or the Park and Recreation Commission in lieu of the Council assigning a commission or certain individuals. Attached is the original volunteer request email and below is a summary of the responses received. Park and Recreation Commission: • Chair Bud Sorenson — "I would think we would be interested as a commission." • Gail Ebert — "I would be interested as long as it's not an additional meeting during the month. I'm committed to the Park & Rec as well as the Charter Commission and couldn't balance another group meeting on top of working 50 plus hrs a week. Thanks, Gail" • Muriel Lee — no response • Roger Peterson — "I don't think this is something I can commit to at present, but thanks for asking. Y.' • John Russell — "Yes to I & 2 JR" • Thomas Shinnick "I would be willing to serve on this project" • Dan Starling — no response • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Planning Commission: 0 • Chair Sean Rahn — no response • Kara Kuykendall — "I would like to participate." 1. Do you desire to participate in the three events for the public participation process? "YES" 2. If yes, are you open to participating individually, as part of the commission or either methods would be fine? "EITHER. Thanks, Kara" • Stan Leino — no response • Rachel Morey — no response • Carlos Morgan — no response • Michael Parks — "Yes I am interested in the proposed 3 rd Generation Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Mgt. Plan. Thanks for including us. Mike" • Stephen Schonning — no response Subsequently, the Planning Commission discussed this item at its May 26, 2011, meeting and indicated that the Commission had an overall interest if this item were to be a routine Planning Commission item in support of its mission pertaining to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy Issues: Which commission, commissioners or combination thereof does the City Council desire to designate to provide review and input on the watershed management plan? Council Goals: Strategic: 6. We will respond to increased public awareness and interest in environmental sustainability and green community issues Ongoing: 6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly managed Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Shins, - creek Watershed Management Commission wisse�i i. :,* � - `_ � �(,�fers fC�:lVfPnpAC /n[ „ f C�A•Iui55i�� .�;.�ti,. „ 3235 Fernbrook Lane N Plymouth, MN 55447 Tel: 763.553.1144 • Fca: 763.553.9326 Email: IUdieg iass.biZ • Webshe: WWW.sh!nglecreek.org L ` April 22, 2011 City Managers via USPS City Clerks via USPS Technical Advisory Committee Members via email Member Cities Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Hennepin County, Minnesota Gentlemen and Ladies: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions have initiated development of their joint Third Generation Watershed Management Plan. State statute requires that watershed plans be updated at a minimum of every ten years and the Commissions' joint Second Generation Watershed Management Plan expires at the end of 2012. Our goal is to have a draft of the plan completed by the end of c' ag ency , p ublic review in 2012. 2011 for cit ag y, p . The watershed planning process is governed by state statute and rule. The state agency responsible for planning oversight is the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). BWSR and state regulations require that this planning process be completed in an open manner, with robust opportunities for public input. As joint powers organizations, it is essential that city technical and management staff and City Councils participate in the planning process as well. This will result in a plan to meet both regulatory and member city needs in a cost- effective manner. To that end, the Commissions, with BWSR approval, have developed a public input process. This letter provides an overview of the process and requests some actions from you as follows: 1. Instead of establishing a separate watershed wide Citizens Advisory Committee specifically for this plan, we think it would be more efficient and provide for a broader rep resentation of views if each City charges one of its existing citizen advisory commissions to provide review and input at key steps along the way. City staff and/or watershed commissioners will facilitate discussion, and the Commissions will provide presentation and handout materials for city use. It is expected that this input would be requested at least three times: early in the plan development; midway as the implementation and education and outreach plans are being developed; and prior to approving the final draft of the plan. If possible, this input process can be incorporated into the advisory commission's regular meeting schedule. The Commissions request that each city designate a citizens advisory commission to provide review and input on the watershed management plan. Please provide the Commissions' administrator, Judie Anderson, with the name of the commission, a schedule of their regular meetings for the balance of 2011, and the appropriate contact person. We'd like that first • meeting to occur by the end of May 2011. Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Champlin • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale April 22, 2011 Page 2 2. This summer the Shingle Creek Commission will host a Lake Association Summit to obtain review and input from lakeshore property owners. More information will be forthcoming as the summit is organized. 3. City managers and their staff will be invited to participate in a forum midway through the planning process, approximately June or July 2011, to discuss goals, policies, and financing: Additional meetings may be scheduled as the group desires. Judie Anderson will be in contact with City Managers' offices to check calendars. 4. Presentations and handouts will be posted on the Commissions' website and the public will be encouraged to submit continents. We will be creating a Management Plan page on the www.shinalecreek.ore website and will ask that each member city provide a link to that page on its website. 5. Periodic short news updates will be submitted to cities for their use on websites and in city newsletters and to the local press. These will be available on the Commissions' website and cities are free to use them in whatever way works for them. Please be sure that Judie Anderson has up to date contact emails so this information gets to the right person. 6. We will be using the free online tool Survey Monkey to periodically obtain public input at the beginning, middle, and end of the planning process. Questions will focus on identifying issues, evaluating and providing input on management goals, and prioritizing potential actions. We will ask that as each survey comes out you post its availability on your city's website and ( encourage the general public and the City Council, city staff, and advisory commission members to respond to the surveys. 7. As part of a larger, ongoing effort to increase awareness of the watershed commissions and the projects the cities are undertaking, we will be working with local cable TV and the cities to prepare short videos highlighting construction projects, monitoring, and other topics of interest. These will be available on YouTube, with links posted on the Commissions' website. Again, we would ask that you post information about the videos and links on your websites. Thank you for your time and attention. We look forward to working with you this year on the Third Generation Watershed Management Plan. If you have any questions please feel free to contact Judie Anderson, the Commissions' administrator, at j_udie@,iass.biz or 763 -553 -1144. j Sincerely, Tina Carstens, Chair Brooklyn Park Representative Cc: Commissioners / via email f ZAShingle CreekWanagementPlanWhird Geperation P1an1L- cities re public input process.doc Julie Hanson 0 a rom: Steve Lillehaug nt: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:12 AM Steve Lillehaug Subject: Commission Volunteers - 3rd Generation Watershed Plan review and input From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Friday, May 13, 201111:44 AM To: Gary Eitel; Jim Glasoe; Tim Benetti; Steve Lillehaug Cc: Curt Boganey Subject: Commission Volunteers - 3rd Generation Watershed Plan review and input Gary/Tim and Jim, At Monday's Council meeting, the Council directed staff to request volunteers from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission to provide review and input as part of the public input process in the development of the 3rd Generation Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Plan. This input is expected to be requested a least three times: early in the plan development, midway and prior to approving the final draft of the plan. This work is planned to occur over the next seven months and be completed by the end of 2011 for City, agency and public review in 2012. Please see the attached letter for additional information. Please formally contact your commissions and provide them this information, the attached and ask them two questions: 1. Do you desire to participate in the three events for the public participation process? 2. If yes, are you open to participating individually, as part of the your commission or either methods would be fine? If an entire commission volunteers, we most likely would try and coordinate input during a regular commission meeting. If only individuals volunteer, we would be setting up separate meeting times in addition to the normal commission meetings. Please request this information of your commissioners and provide responses to be directly by May 20, 2011. Once we evaluate the results, we will be providing the information to the Council. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, Steven L. Lillehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works /City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2113 763- 569 -3328 direct 1763-569-3494 fax slillehaug @ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us 1 Work Session Agenda Item No. 5 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 9, 2011 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage SUBJECT: Sale of Shingle Creek Towers Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding further response to the proposed sale of Shingle Creek Towers Background: With this memo I have enclosed the following: 1. HUD Bid Requirements for the Sale of Shingle Creek Towers 2. Summons and Civil Action filed by Home Line contesting the loosening of income restrictions 3. Complaint filed against HUD and Emmanuel Ku in Michigan citing numerous alleged code violations 4. Hartford Business Journal article regarding alleging terrible record of poor housing • maintenance. 5. E -mail to Mr. Paul F. Woxland, Director of Multifamily, Minneapolis Office 6. Joint letter from Representative Hilstrom and Senator Scheid encouraging HUD to reject the bid of Emmanuel Ku. It is our understanding that the Minneapolis Office will forward its recommendation to Washington on the sale this week. On Monday staff will provide an additional overview of the issue and answer Council questions. In the event that the Council wishes to authorize a letter to HUD from the Council, we will have a letter drafted for your consideration. Policy Issues: What further action will best serve the interest of the City? Council Goals: Strategic: We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods . 06.13. l l .work.shinglecreek.towers.doc ;Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quall(v of'life and preserves the public trust Curt Boganey From: Curt Boganey • Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 2:32 PM To: 'Paul.Woxland @HUD.Gov' Cc: BC City Council; Gary Eitel Subject: Sale of Shingle Creek Towers Dear Mr. Woxland, It is my understanding your office has received a bid for the purchase of Shingle Creek Apartments in Brooklyn Center from an LLC of which the Principal owner is Mr. Emmanuel Ku of the State of New York. It is also my understanding that a recommendation regarding the acceptance of this offer will be forthcoming from your office in the near future. I know that you have received numerous inquiries regarding this pending sale and I appreciate the time you have given to my staff. I also understand that you are well aware of the numerous allegations regarding the management practices of Mr. Ku. This e -mail is simply intended to reinforce the concern of the Mayor, City Council and administration for City of Brooklyn Center. If any of the allegations regarding poor management practices of Mr. Ku are determined to be factual, we believe this proposed bid should be rejected by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We believe the acceptance of this bid would not serve the interests of our community or the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Cornelius Boganey ICMA CM City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 763- 569 -3303 • i Printer - friendly page from www.hud.gov Page l .of 1 This page is located on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homes and Communities website at h tto : / /www.hud.aov /offices /hsa /mfh /Dd /shin /shinoaae cfm Shingle Creek Apartments Communit*e!i- U.S.Department of How' 9 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota n Information by State Print version s O O Ll p x Want More Information? Property at a Glance Information & Bid Kit Photo Album Location Map Bids will be accepted orally on: Date: March 24, 2011 Time: 10:00 am (local time) Place: Hennepin County Sherriff's Office Civil Division Courthouse, Room 30 350 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 This thirteen story, elevator type complex was built in 1974, with rehab in 2003. Located on approximately 4.328 acres this facility offers 78 one- bedroom and 44 two - bedroom units. A $75,000 Earnest Money Deposit is required for bidding at the foreclosure sale. A $25,000 Letter of Credit is required at closing to insure the completion of repairs to meet state and local codes. HUD does not own or operate this facility and cannot grant access. Viewing is at the discretion of the current owner. OPEN HOUSE: None Scheduled U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708 -1112 Find the address of a HUD office near you http://www.hud.gov/utilities/Print/ Qhttt)%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ehu... 2/22/2011 P MENT p� Q H O H e x EV �N 6 Shingle Creek Towers Apartments (aka Viewpoint at Shingle Creek) •FHA # : 092 -35634 ADDRESS: 6221 Shingle Creek Pkwy. EARNEST MONEY: $75,000 SALES PRICE: Unstated Minimum Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 TERMS: All Cash -As Is, 30 days to close COUNTY: Hennepin LETTER OF CREDIT $25,000 SALE TYPE: Foreclosure PROPERTY INFORMATION Foundation: Slab on gra Total Units Residential Commercial Roof: Flat Membrane 122 Revenue 12Z Exterior: Brick veneer Non- Revenue Floors /Finish: Carpet/Tile Mobile Scattered Service Home Nursing Vacant Elevator Garden Walk-up Townhouse Sites Center Park Home Land Other: X Number of Approximate Approximate Buildin s Stories Year Built Rehab Year Site Acrea a Net Rentable Area 1 13 1974 2003 1 4.328 75 960 Mechanical Systems Utilities Parking Heating: Air Public Water x Street Asphalt Fuel I Gas Conditioning None Gas Main X Curb Concrete System Central Windows Screen Electric X Sidewalk Concrete Hot Water: Sanitary Sewer X Parking Lot Asphalt Fuel I Gas Storm Sewer Parking 1 Lot System LCen tral Septic Tank Spaces 122 A artment Features Community Features Owner Expense Tenant Expense Air Conditioning Garage Water A/C Unit Dishwasher Covered Parking Gas Microwave X Laundry Facility Electricity • Garbage Disposal X Cable /Sat Hookup X Refrigerator Playground Elec Range /Oven Pool X Drapes /Blinds X Community Space OCCUPANCY fe3ir 1arr eti `, iMar 1l► "r 1 M1a a `. .. ,t m `t1 , �_ �:` e' .Act . ..3F1oV.a,. = .�?eC.. 2009 82% 81% 79% 82% 79% 76% 79% 80% 83% 83% , 83% 84% _ ESTIMATED ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME: Estimated Estimated Total Number ` Apprbx '" ,Current Possible /Possible" Estimated/ "of Units' Type. Square ' Rent After Said Total After Possible Feet "Sale Rent Annual Income 6 1 HC 575 575 575 $3,450 Rent $921, 72 1 575 575 575 41 Commercial 1 3 2 HC 832 725 725 2,17S Illarking 41 2 832 725 725 29,725 TOTAL $922,200 9"96 : ted Lift ihh Administrative $167,87S Utilities 140,000 Operating 88115 Taxes Insurance 198,260 Reserve/Replace 36,600 O&M 1,000 Maintenance TOTAL MONTHLY $76,750 TOTAL $631,850 COMMENTS CONCERNING PROPERTY INFORMATION: HUD does not own or operate this facility and can not grant access for viewing. Viewing is at the discretion of the current owner. • Due diligence should be performed in advance of submitting a bid. While care has been exercised to ensure accuracy, all information provided is solely for the purpose of permitting parties to determine whether or not the property is of such type and general character as to interest them in its purchase. HUD makes no warranty as to the accuracy of such information. USE RESTRICTIONS'': 20 Years affordable housing. 2 Years rent ca for very-low income eligible residents. �M purchaser must complete the repairs to meet state and local codes, ordinances and regulations within 12 months after closing. • At closing, Purchaser must deliver two (2) Letters of Credit totaling $25,000). The first LoC must be in the amount of $15,000; the second LoC must be in the amount of $10,000. Both LoCs must have an expiration date no earlier than eighteen (18) months after closing. HUD will release the first LoC ($15,000) upon HUD inspection and acceptance of repairs. The second LoC ($10,000) will be held until the expiration date. Be advised that failure to complete the 'repairs to the satisfaction of HUD will result in HUD cashing any or all LoCs. The funds may be applied to correct latent defects, or for such other purposes as the Secretary deems appropriate which includes retaining the funds as liquidated' damages. (See Use Agreement, Rider 2, Required Rehabilitation and Relocation.) • Closing is to be held 30 days after HUD accepts the bid. If HUD authorizes an extension of the closing, the purchaser must pay a fee which is the greater of 1.5% of the purchase price or HUD's holding costs of $ 26.35 per unit per day for each 30 day period. • No Section 8 Rental Assistance is included with this sale. • Riders placed in the Deed will include the following: ✓ Affordability of Units ✓ Required Rehabilitation and Relocation ✓ Lead-;Based Paint Hazards ✓ Asbestos Hazards ✓ Two Year Rent Protection for Pre- Existing Very-Low Income Tenants ✓ Nondiscrimination Against Multifamily Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Holders ✓ Mold Hazards • Interested parties should verify Flood Zone Data for the area. Property may be located in a flood zone area. NOTICE: Participants have the option to file the required Previous Participation Certification (aka Form HUD -2530) in digital (electronic) or paper format. For more information, contact a Realty Specialist. • For questions concerning APPS contact the Multifamily Housing Systems Help Desk at 1- 800 -767 -7588. For questions concerning Secure Systems contact the REAC _Help Desk at 1- 888 - 245 -4860. PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS SHOULD READ AND THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN AND IN THE BID KIT PRIOR TO. SUBMITTING A BID. This is an "Ali Cash — As Is" sale. HUD is providing no financing for this sale. The purchaser must provide for payment of the full purchase price in cash at closing. Submission of Bids: Bids for this property can only be considered for acceptance if submitted on the specific forms listed in the Bid Kit for this property, along with required earnest money. A Bid Kit may be obtained as indicated below. Suspended or Debarred Parties: No consideration will be given to a bid submitted by any party currently suspended or debarred from participating in HUD programs. AS PROVIDED FOR IN 24 CFR, SEC: 27, THE DEFAULTING MORTGAGOR, OR ANY PRINCIPAL, SUCCESSOR, AFFILIATE, OR ASSIGNEE ON THE MORTGAGE AT THE TIME OF DEFAULT SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BID ON OR OTHERWISE PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. (Principal and Affiliate are defined at 24 CFR 200.215.) INSPECTION OP PROPERTYAND BIDDING ZNSTRUCTIONS Prospective bidders are urged and invited to inspect the property prior to submitting a bid. Note: If this is a foreclosure sale, HUD may not have access to the property. Bids for this property can only be considered if properly submitted by following the bidding instructions provided in the FREE INFORMATION and BID KIT. The FREE INFORMATION and BID KIT may be viewed or printed at http• / /www.hud -gov/ offices /hsg /mfh /od /multifam.cfm You may also sign up for our electronic mailing list at this web address. If you do not have access to the internet or cannot download a PDF file, you may obtain a bid kit by contacting the Realty Specialist identified below: BIDS for Shingle Creek Apts. HUD OFFICE: REALTY SPECIALIST: MUST BE PRESENTED ON: March 24, 2011 U. S. Dept of Housing and Debie Bolin at: 10:00 am (local time) Urban Development Phone : (817) 978 -5822 at: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Multifamily PD Center debie.f.bolin @hud.gov . Civil Division Courthouse, Room 30 801 Cherry Str., Unit #45, Ste. 2500 350 South 5 Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Minneapolis, MN 55415 HUD - Multifamily Housing - PD property photos Page 1 of 3 C ommunities 'n espaiiol I Contact Us I Text only I Search/index U.S. Deparvn�nt of Housing Housin Shingle Creek Photo Album About Housing ( Information by State Contact Print version Key vords Single Family ORMRA Hospitals ® Multifamily . 0 About MF business%Ts e Multifamily data © Program information O Renting , 0 Sec 8 expiring contracts O Sec 8 contract admin s # (0 MF Accei Processing (MAP) e Neighborhood Networks" ja c k OAHp a..- Reading room Online forums Work online HUD news Homes: ` Resources ra�> Communities • Working with HUD Tool S X, y Webcasts Mailing lists RSS Feeds Help F U - ov Gov :rums 7 Uk" Easy - • " m • http: / /www.hud.gov/ office /h sg/mfh/pd/shin/shinphot.cfm 2/22/2011 HUD - Multifamily Housing - PD property photos Page 2 of 3 • I A P ra r 46�'mY Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Imoortant Links Home ,,r U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . 451 7th Street Te epho e: (202)�7 Washin D DS 1112 TTY: (2 20 708 -1455 � Find the address of a HUD office near you http: / /www.hud.gov/ offices /hsg /mfh/pd/shin/shinphot.cfn 2/22/ USE RESTRICTIONS ' 20 Years affordable housing. 2 Years rent cap protection for very -low income eligible residents. ... ,..fl • The purchaser must complete the repairs to meet state and local codes, ordinances and regulations within 12 months after closing. • At closing, Purchaser must deliver two (2) Letters of Credit totaling $25,000. The first LoC must be in the amount of $15,000; the second LoC must be In the amount of $10,000. Both LoCs must have an expiration date no earlier than eighteen (18) months after closing. HUD will release the first LoC ($15,000) upon HUD inspection and acceptance of repairs. The second LoC ($10,000) will be held until the expiration date. Be advised that failure to complete the repairs to the satisfaction of HUD will result in HUD cashing any or all LoCs. The funds may be applied to correct latent defects, or for such other purposes as the Secretary deems appropriate which includes retaining the funds as liquidated damages. (See Use Agreement, Rider 2, Required Rehabilitation and Relocation.) • Closing is to be held 30 days after HUD accepts the bid. If HUD authorizes an extension of the closing, the purchaser must pay a fee which is the greater of 1.5% of the purchase price or HUD's holding costs of $ 26.35 per unit per day for each 30 day period. • No Section 8 Rental Assistance is included with this sale. • Riders placed in the Deed will include the following: ✓ Affordability of Units ✓ Required Rehabilitation and Relocation ✓ Lead -Based Paint Hazards ✓ Asbestos Hazards ✓ Two Year Rent Protection for Pre - Existing Very-Low Income Tenants ✓ Nondiscrimination Against Multifamily Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Holders ✓ Mold Hazards • Interested parties should verify Flood Zone Data for the area. Property may be located in a flood zone area. NOTICE: Participants have the option to file the required Previous Participation Certification (aka Form HUD -2530) in • digital (electronic) or paper format. For more information, contact a Realty Specialist. For questions concerning APPS contact the Multifamily Housing Systems Help Desk at 1- 800 - 767 -7588. For questions concerning Secure Systems contact the REAC Help Desk at 1- 888 - 245 -4860. PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS SHOULD READ AND THOROUGHLY UNDERSTAND ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREIN AND IN THE BID KIT PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID. This is an "All Cash — As Is" sale. HUD is providing no financing for this sale. The purchaser must provide for payment of the full purchase price in cash at closing. Submission of Bids: Bids for this property can only be considered for acceptance if submitted on the specific forms listed in the Bid Kit for this property, along with required earnest money. A Bid Kit may be obtained as indicated below. Suspended or Debarred Parties: No consideration will be given to a bid submitted by any party currently suspended or debarred from participating in HUD programs. AS PROVIDED FOR IN 24 CFR, SEC. 27, THE DEFAULTING MORTGAGOR, OR ANY PRINCIPAL, SUCCESSOR, AFFILIATE, OR ASSIGNEE ON THE MORTGAGE AT THE TIME OF DEFAULT SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BID ON OR OTHERWISE PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. (Principal and Affiliate are defined at 24 CFR 200.215.) INSPECTION OF PROPERTY AND BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS Prospective bidders are urged and invited to inspect the property prior to submitting a bid. Note: If this is a foreclosure sale, HUD may not have access to the property. Bids for this property can only be considered if properly submitted by following the bidding instructions provided in the FREE INFORMATION and BID KIT. The FREE INFORMATION and BID KIT may be viewed or printed at httr)://www.hud.gov/offices/hs /mfh/pd/mu1tifaLn cfm You may also sign up for our electronic mailing list at this web address. If you do not have access to the internet or cannot download a PDF file, you may obtain a bid kit by contacting the Realty Specialist identified below: BIDS for Shingle Creek Apts. HUD OFFICE: REALTY SPECIALIST: MUST BE PRESENTED ON: April 14, 2011 U. S. Dept of Housing and Debie Bolin at: 10:00 am (local time) Urban Development Phone : (817) 978 -5822 at: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Multifamily PD Center debie.f.bolin @hud.gov . Civil Division Courthouse, Room 30 801 Cherry Str., Unit #45, Ste. 2500 350 South 5 th Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Minneapolis, MN 55415 AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action G r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Minnesota Kane, et al ) Plaintiff ) V. ) Civil Action No. (l C 6 P5P 11 97—K U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ) ) Defendant ) SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20410 i= A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on ou not y ( c ounting the day you received it) --- or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached com laint or a motion under Rule 12 f P o the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are: John Cann Housing Preservation Project 570 Asbury treet Suit s ry e 105 Saint Paul, MN 55104 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT RICHARD D. SLETTEN i Date: �Z 1 1 Signat re of Jerk or Deputy Clerk i • EXHIBIT t 0 s' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Barbara Kane, Kathleen Schlauch, Nadine Wilson, Edward Colbert, Tony Bari, and HOME Civil Action No. Line, a Minnesota non - profit corporation, Plaintiffs, V. COMPLAINT U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban ' Development, Defendant. L INTRODUCTION E 1. Shingle Creek Towers is a 122 -unit apartment building in Brooklyn Center i Minnesota which is the recipient of federal, state, county and city subsidies intended to maintain its availability as affordable housing for low income residents. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is foreclosing on the project mortgage and, contrary to federal } statutes and its own regulations, proposes to eliminate current rent limits and other tenant protections after the foreclosure sale. Individual Plaintiffs are current residents dependant on existing rent restrictions and tenant protections that HUD proposes to alter or eliminate. HUD's proposed actions will harm Plaintiff HOME Line's ongoing efforts to organize and assist project residents. HUD's actions are arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to federal law and Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.. II. JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' federal claims is conferred upon this court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 1 3. This court is empowered to grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and further necessary or proper relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and by 5 U.S.C. § 706. 4. To the extent sovereign immunity is applicable to Defendant HUD, it has been j waived by 5 U.S.C. § 702 and 12 U.S.C. § 1702. 5. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiffs' claims arose in this district. i III. PARTIES 6. The individual Plaintiffs, low income residents of Shingle Creek Towers, 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, are: Barbara Kane (apartment 1005), Kathleen Schlauch (apartment 1205), Nadine Wilson and Edward Colbert (apartment 1109), and Tony Bari (apartment 1206). They seek to retain current limitations on rent increases and other tenant protections the loss of which is threatened by the proposed terms of HUD's foreclosure sale, which are contrary to federal statutes. 7. Plaintiff HOME Line is a Minnesota non - profit corporation whose corporate mission includes provision of tenant organizing assistance as well as educational and advocacy in order to improve public and private policies relating to rental housing, involving affected tenants in the process. HOME Line has assisted with tenant organizing in the building since 2002. The statutorily protected right of tenants of subsidized housing to organize and participate in management has been critical to these efforts. That right, as well as other federal tenant protections critical to HOME Line's ability to assist Shingle Creek tenants from unjustified rent increases and groundless evictions, will be lost if HUD is permitted to foreclose on the terms which the agency currently proposes, which are contrary to federal law. HUD's actions injure 2 • HOME Line as an organization by interfering with its mission and activities and by causing it to divert resources from other activities to counter HUD's illegal actions. 8. Defendant HUD is foreclosing on the Shingle Creek mortgage pursuant to the Federal Multifamily Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 3701 et seq. (MFA). In foreclosing on the e a mort HUD is subject to the provisions and requirements of the MFA the Federal mortgage, J P q Multifamily Disposition Act 12 U.S.C. Section 1701z -11 (MDA) and the regulations promulgated under those statutes at 24 C.F.R. Parts 27 and 290. IV. FACTS 9. Shingle Creek Towers was developed as federally subsidized housing under Section 236 of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. Section 1715z -1. Under that program, the • mortgage was federally insured and HUD provided a subsidy to reduce the effective interest rate to one percent. Under the Section 236 program, and the Use Agreement currently in effect for Shingle Creek, rent increases are permitted only to cover actual and reasonable increases in project expenses. Residents of Section 236 projects are also protected by federal statute and regulation from eviction without cause and are guaranteed the right to form tenant organizations and to participate in project management. 24 C.F.R. Parts 245 and 247. 10. In 2002 the owner sought to leave the program. A preservation effort resulted in sale of the project. The project was refinanced under Section 236(e), again with HUD mortgage insurance and with the interest rate subsidy left in place. At that time the project also received federal low income housing tax credits, and $1.9 million in subsidies from the State, County and City of Brooklyn Center in order to assure an extended period of affordability. Under the tax 3 credit program, incomes are limited to 60% of area median income and residents are protected from eviction without cause. 11. As required by the Section 236(e) preservation program, a Use Agreement was imposed by HUD which extended the income, rent, and operating restrictions five years beyond the original mortgage maturity date. The Use Agreement is in effect through September 2019 s and requires the owner to comply with the income, rent, and operating restrictions of the Section 236 program and the tax credit program. Apart from the Use Agreement, the tax credit restrictions apply for thirty years. 12. The buyer in 2002 defaulted on the HUD- insured mortgage, and HUD paid the lender's insurance claim and became the project's mortgagee. 13. HUD has instituted foreclosure of the Shingle Creek mortgage pursuant to the Federal Multifamily Foreclosure Act which provides at 12 U.S.C. § 3706(b): •4 () Except as P paragraph ara raP (2)(A), 1 t provided in h the Secretary may require, as 'a sale I condition and term of sale, that the purchaser at a foreclosure s a e un der this chapter agree to continue to operate the security property in accordance with the terms of the program under which the mortgage insurance or assistance was provided, or any applicable regulatory or other agreement in effect with respect to such property immediately prior to the time of foreclosure sale. (2)(A) In an J case where the majority of the residential units m a property t3' i ntial tenants at the time of the h ale are occupied b de subject to such a s p y residential sale, the Secretary shall require, as a condition a nd term of sale, any p urchaser (other than the Secretary) to operate the property in accordance with such ms referred to in paragraph 1 . h programs terms, as appropriate, oft e p ogr p g P ( ) 14. The majority of the Shingle Creek apartments are occupied and HUD is therefore bound by the mandatory requirement of 12 U.S.C. § 3706(b)(2)(A) that HUD require a foreclosure sale buyer to operate the property in accordance with the terms of the program under which the project was assisted and any regulatory agreement in effect prior to forclosure. 4 i E G 15. It is clear from legislative history that Congress intended that buyers at 4 foreclosure be required to operate the project under the terms of the original program so as to "assure wherever possible and practicable that the multifamily properties be preserved as low- or r moderate- income rental housing." House Conference Report 97 -208, page 715. Absent this requirement, all federal controls over project operation would be lost at a foreclosure sale. t 16. In addition, 12 U.S.C. Section 1701z- 11(k)(2) provides: The Secretary may not approve the sale of any subsidized project -(A) that is subject to a mortgage held by the Secretary... unless such sale is made as part of a 4 transaction that will ensure that the project will continue to operate, at least until the maturity date of the loan or mortgage, in a manner that will provide rental housing on terms at least as advantageous to existing and future tenants as the terms required by the program under which the loan or mortgage was made or insured prior to the proposed sale of the project. i 17. Because HUD must approve all foreclosure sales pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Section 1701z- 11(c)(3)(B), the requirement of Section 1701z- 11(k)(2) applies to foreclosure sales and f • imposes an obligation very similar to that of Section 3706, except that there is no "as appropriate" language. 18. HUD's regulations implementing Section 3706 specify eight specific sets of factors which HUD must consider in determining the provisions of the pre - foreclosure assistance { programs that are to be imposed on foreclosure sale buyers. 24. C.F.R. Section 27.20. These f factors include the history, financial and physical analyses of the project; income of residents and likelihood of displacement; need for and availability of affordable housing in the area and characteristics of comparable housing; and eligibility of residents for additional assistance and availability of such assistance. Id. i 19. Regardless of whether the regulation at 24 C.F.R. Section 27.20 adequately encompasses the Congressional intent that affordable projects be preserved wherever possible, it f 5 at least imposes on HUD the obligation to consider, in every case, factors that are highly project- specific. Despite this requirement, HUD routinely, and improperly, imposes the same restrictions on all foreclosure sale buyers of subsidized housing. These standard restrictions limit rents for new tenants to 30% of 80% of area median income. In this metropolitan area, that is currently $1,289 for a two- bedroom apartment, an absurdly high number. The standard Use S i Agreement eliminates protections for eviction without cause and for tenant organizing and ! i i participation in management. 20. When HUD originally noticed the foreclosure sale for May 14, 2010, the a foreclosure material indicated that HUD would replace all existing restrictions on project operations with a new Use Agreement. This new agreement set new rent limits that were so much higher than current rents, and so much less restrictive than the Section 236 rent increase t 4 controls, as to be meaningless. There was no protection from eviction without cause and no right to organize and participate in project management. 21. A number of residents, through their attorneys, complained that the Use Agreement proposed by HUD did not meet the requirements of Section 3706(b) of the r i r Multifamily Foreclosure Act. In response, HUD cancelled the foreclosure sale. In December 2010, the HUD General Counsel's Office informed the residents' attorneys that HUD was developing a "comprehensive response" to the issues raised with respect to the foreclosure of the Shingle Creek mortgage. i 22. Nevertheless, on January 25, 2011, HUD sent a letter announcing the new terms t i of the foreclosure sale. There were some changes in the rent limits but these still left limits so far above current rents and so much less effective than the Section 236 limits on rent increases as to 6 e be meaningless. There was still no protection from eviction without cause and no right to . i organize and participate in project management. 23. HUD established March 24, 2011, as the new date for the foreclosure sale. The foreclosure sale is not actually completed on that date. A high bidder is selected, but this bidder must still be approved by HUD after a review of ownership qualifications before a deed 4 transferring the property is executed. 24. Under the proposed Use Agreement, rents for 99 of the 122 units are limited to the least of 30% of 50% of area median income ($735 for one person), the Section 8 voucher payment standard ($790 for a 1- bedroom apartment) or "market rents." The "market rent" is not i j a a a meaningful Limit on rents, since the market rent is whateve r an applicant will pay. The current 1- bedroom rent ranges from $575 to $631, far below the "limits" in the new Use Agreement and, { • under the Section 236.program, can be increased only to cover actual increases in expenses. r 25. HUD's standard Use Agreement following foreclosure of the mortgage on a subsidized project routinely permits rents after foreclosure of subsidized projects as high as 30 % of 80% of area median income. This is permitted on 23 of the Shingle Creek units. This violates f 12 USC Sections (e)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(5)(A)(i) which require HUD to ensure that all very low i income residents pay no more than 30% of 50% of area median income for the remaining useful i life of the project. 26. The importance of the statutory and regulatory protections for tenant organizing i were demonstrated on March 4, 2011, when the management unilaterally cancelled a meeting i called by tenant organizers to discuss the foreclosure. Management immediately reversed its position when confronted with a complaint from attorneys based on the HUD regulations. • 7 q Without the p rotection of these reg arbitr lations such arbitra management actions will be i i permissible in the future. I 27. HUD's letter claimed that the terms of the Use Agreement were those HUD had i determined to be "appropriate" under the terms of Section 3706(b). But there was no explanation at all of why HUD considered it appropriate to eliminate all of the tenant protections provided tenants under the Section 236 program. There was no explanation of why the factors which HUD is required to consider under its own regulations dictated elimination of all of these tenant protections. 28. On January 31, 2011, the residents' attorneys sent a Freedom of Information Act request to HUD asking for documentation that HUD had considered each of the factors set out in k the agency regulations in reaching a determination that it was appropriate to eliminate all of the i tenant protection provisions of the Section 236 program. Although HUD's regulations require an agency response to all FOIA requests within 20 business days, there has been no response to date. 29. On March 9 2011 the Plaintiffs' attorneys sent another letter to HUD reciting the Y G ways in which the proposed sale violates federal statutes and regulations and indicating that i Plaintiffs would litigate if HUD did not reconsider. There has been no reply to date. z 30. Plaintiffs face an imminent threat of loss of federally protected rights. They have no adequate remedy at law and seek injunctive and declaratory relief. j 1 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION HUD's proposed foreclosure violates 12 U.S.C. Section 3706(b) • 8 31. HUD's proposed foreclosure sale does not comply with the requirements of 12 i USC Section 3706(b) in that HUD is not requiring, as a condition of sale, that the buyer operate i the property in accordance with the terms of the current 236 program and regulatory agreement. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to have a reviewing court set aside the sale pursuant to Section i 706(2) of the APA. Alternatively, under Section 706(1) the court may compel HUD to comply I with the statute in carrying out the foreclosure. Under Section 705, the Court may enjoin the sale pending final determination. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 706 and 42 U.S.C. Section 220E SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION HUD's proposed foreclosure violates 12 U.S.C. Section 1701z- 11(k)(2). 32. HUD's proposed foreclosure sale does not comply with the requirements of 12 F • U.S.C. Section 1701z -1 l(k)(2) in that HUD is not requiring, as a condition of the agency's i approval of the sale, that the buyer operate the property in a manner no less advantageous to residents than the terms of the current 236 program and regulatory agreement. Therefore, i Plaintiffs are entitled to have a reviewing court set aside the sale pursuant to Section 706(2) of i the APA. Alternatively, under Section 706(1) the court may compel HUD to comply with the k statute in carrying out the foreclosure. Under Section 705, the Court may enjoin the sale pending final determination. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 706 f and 42 U.S.C. Section 2201. i THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION HUD's actions are arbitrary and capricious 33. HUD's actions in proceeding with the sale based on the currently proposed Use Agreement to be imposed on the buyer are arbitrary and capricious because HUD failed to • 9 k consider the factors required by its own regulations at 24 C.F.R. Section 27.20 in determining the constraints on the operation of the project to be included in the Use Agreement. HUD's actions are also arbitrary and capricious because HUD failed to provide any reasons for its actions, contrary to the requirements of Section 555(e) of the APA. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to have a reviewing court set aside the sale pursuant to Section 706(2) of the APA. Alternatively, I under Section 706(1) the court may compel HUD to comply with its regulations in determining the terms of the foreclosure sale. Under Section 705 of the APA, the Court may enjoin the sale pending final determination. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 706 of the APA and 42 U.S.C. Section 2201. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION HUD's proposed foreclosure violates 12 U.S.C. Section 1701z -11. F 34. HUD's actions in proceeding with the sale based on the currently proposed Use • 4 t Agreement to be imposed on the buyer are unlawful, arbitrary and capricious because HUD's proposed Use Agreement does not limit rents for all very low income households to 30% of 50% of area median income as required by 12 USC Sections (e)(1)(A)(iii) and (b)(5)(A)(i). Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to have a reviewing court set aside the sale pursuant to Section 706(2) of the APA. Alternatively, under Section 706(1) the court may compel HUD to comply with its regulations in determining the terms of the foreclosure sale. Under Section 705 of the APA, the Court may enjoin the sale pending final determination. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 706 of the APA and 42 U.S.C. Section 2201. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court issue the following relief: 10 • 1. Enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, preventing HUD from completing a foreclosure sale until the Court has made a final determination on the merits. 2. Enter a declaratory judgment against HUD, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 5 U.S.C. § 706, that in any foreclosure sale of Shingle Creek Towers, HUD must comply with the requirements of 12 U.S.C. Sections 3706(b) and 1701z- 1l(k)(2) and impose on the buyer: a) a limitation on rent increases over current levels to those necessary to cover actual and reasonable cost increases; b) a prohibition against termination of tenancies without cause; and c) compliance with tenant organizing and participation requirements set out in 24 C.F.R. Part 245. 3. Alternatively, enter a declaratory judgment against HUD, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 5 U.S.C. § 706, that HUD must fully comply with its regulations at 24 C.F.R. Section i 27.20 in determining use restrictions to impose on any buyer at a foreclosure sale. , • j 4. Enter a declaratory judgment against HUD, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 5 U.S.C. § 706, that in any foreclosure sale of Shingle Creek Towers, HUD must require that rents of any very low income resident not exceed 30% of 50% of area median income. 3 5. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant HUD to comply with the requirements of 12 U.S.C. Sections 3706(6), 1701z- 11(k)(2), and 1701z -11 and the regulations at { _F 24 C.F.R. Section 27.20 in any foreclosure sale of Shingle Creek Towers and impose on the i buyer: a) a limitation on rent increases over current levels to those necessary to cover actual and reasonable cost increases; b) a prohibition against termination of tenancies without cause; and c) 4 compliance with tenant organizing and participation requirements set out in 24 C.F.R. Part 245. 6. Award Plaintiffs attorney costs and fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504; and 11 f t 7. Grant Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 22, 2011 s /John Cann John Cann ( #0174841) t Timothy L. Thompson ( #0109447) i Housing Preservation Project 570 Asbury Street, Suite 105 St. Paul, MN 55104 651- 642- 0102(Phone) 651- 642 -0051 (Fax) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS } I i 1 { i 1 { f i f i i I i i f i 1 { i 12 • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION SHARON RUTLEDGE, NACHELLE JOHNSON, LULA HAMPTON; TAURA CHEATHAM, and the PARKVIEW TENANTS' ASSOCIATION, File No. CV- Plaintiffs, V. Hon. 1 U.S. Mag. Judge The U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), and ALFONSO JACKSON, in his official capacity as Secretary of HUD, Defendants. I • HAROLD M. SHULTZ, ESQ., affirms and says: 1. I am an attorney duly authorized to practice law in the State of New York. i 2. Currently I hold the position of Special Counsel to Commissioner Shaun Donovan of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development of the City of New York. In that capacity I am responsible for a wide variety of legal, policy and programmatic issues pertaining to lead paint, homeless housing, tax foreclosure and anti- abandonment, to name a few. I am responsible for the Department's "Housing Vacancy Report and supervise the agency's Technical Services Division which maintains and reports on agency data. I also have primary responsibility over issues related, to HUD i troubled properties. r 3. 1 have been employed by this Department for approximately 28 years holding the following senior level positions: Deputy General Counsel, Office of Legal • Affairs; Deputy Commissioner, Office of Housing Preservation; Deputy Commissioner, Office of Housing Policy and Supervision; Assistant Commissioner, Office of Legal EXHIBIT Affairs; Deputy General Counsel, Office of Law and Intergovernmental Relations; Assistant Commissioner, Division of Evaluation and Compliance; and, Director of the Housing Litigation Bureau. , 4. In relation to matters affirmed to herein I have been intimately involved in the Department's code enforcement, preservation and housing litigation efforts both in supervisory and oversight capacities for many years and am fully familiar ! with the full range of efforts and strategies employed by the Department in relation to i owners of buildings in New York City who fail to comply with the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Code of the City of New York. 5. The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development is the City agency that enforces the provisions of the Housing Maintenance Code, which is New York City's codification of minimum housing standards. Its Code j i Enforcement Division inspects buildings and issues violations where conditions do not comply with these minimum standards. Violations are assessed by degree of severity i (hazard class), "A" violations being non - hazardous, "B" violations being hazardous and "C" violations being immediately hazardous. 6. Owners of buildings who fail to comply with these minimum housing ' i standards may be subject to enforcement proceedings in the Housing Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York. Such proceedings may be initiated by tenants or the Department for correction of violations and fines. Tenant - Initiated actions are typically related to violations in one apartment, while Departmental actions relate to violations throughout a building (comprehensive litigation), or violations of special significance such as heat/hot water violations issued during New York City's "heat season ". 7. Upon information and belief Emmanuel Ku is currently an owner, as defined under the Housing Maintenance Code (Exhibit 1: HMC; Subchap 1, Art. 1, Sec. 27 -2004 [45]), of 13 residential properties in New York City. These properties comprise i 223 apartments and were purchased at various times since 1996 (Exhibit 2; Emmanuel Ku's Property Chart). • j 1 t F 8. Upon information and belief, as of November 16, 2005, the Department has issued 2,953 housing code violations during the various periods of Mr. Ku's ownership. Of these violations 606 were immediately hazardous and 1,763 were hazardous violations. i 9. Upon information and belief, for the period of time from October 29, 1973, through the dates of Mr. Ku's purchase of these properties, the Department issued f 1,371 violations. Based on an analysis of the foregoing, violations have been issued during Mr. Ku's ownership at a rate 10 times greater than prior to his ownership. i 10. Under the Housing Maintenance Code owners are notified of issued f violations and have a specific period of time, depending on the hazard class, to repair the conditions noticed and to certify correction to the Department. Of the 2,953 violations issued during Mr. Ku's ownership 35 violations have been timely certified, a certification rate of 1 certification for every 80.8 violations issued. This certification rate is substantially below the certification rate of owners in New York City. 11. During Mr. Ku's ownership 2,069 of the violations issued have been i closed by the Department. However, there are a number of factors to be considered when evaluating the relative merit of violations closed. First, the number of violations issued during ownership. This has been discussed above with the result being a substantial increase in the rate of violations during Mr. Ku's ownership. Second, the number of days required to close violations. During Mr. Ku's ownership it has taken an average of 992 days to close a violation. Third, the litigation efforts employed against an owner to compel compliance. As will be discussed below the Department's litigation efforts have been significant. 12. =During the period of Mr. Ku's ownership, his 13 properties have been the subject of the following litigations: a. Tenant Initiated Actions -14 b. Heat/Hot Water Litigations - 13 • c. Comprehensive Litigations - 8 f L 13. These litigations have resulted in the payment of fines and penalties of approximately $30,000. 14. It is also significant to note that approximately 45% of the violations, i issued and closed during Mr. Ku's ownership were closed since June 1, 2005, at which -. i time these properties had a total number of 2,132 open violations. Whatever compliance was obtained thereafter from Mr. Ku was compelled as a result of litigation over the f course of years, increased community scrutiny, and Mr. Ku's business strategy of acquiring HUD properties. 15. Based on the foregoing, the Department is of the opinion that Mr. Ku has not been, during the entirety of his ownership of the 13 properties, in substantial compliance with applicable State and local government housing statutes, regulations, ordinances and codes with regard to the properties he owns in New York City. i '�1! f Date: /I 1.e/ Z�; 1�i 01� Department of Housing Preservation and Yarold ment • M. Shul tz, Esq. Special Counsel Office of the Special Counsel 100 Gold Street, Rm. 5 -06 New York, NY 10038 f i r 1 i 5 I EXHIBIT 1: "Owner" Definition under the Housing Maintenance Code (45) The term "owner' shall mean and include the owner or owners of the freehold of the premises or lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee, agent, or any other person, firm or corporation, directly i or indirectly in control of a dwelling. Whenever a multiple dwelling shall have been declared a public nuisance to any extent pursuant to section 27 -2114 of article one of subchapter five of this chapter and such declaration shall have been filed, as therein provided, and for the purposes of section 27 -198 of article nineteen of subchapter one and section 27 -2093 of article one of subchapter four of this code, the term "owner" shall be deemed to include, in addition to those mentioned hereinabove, all the officers, directors f and persons having an interest in more than ten per cent of the issued and outstanding stock of the owner as herein defined, as holder or beneficial owner thereof, if such owner i • be a .corporation other than a banking organization as defined in section two of the f banking law, a national banking association, a federal savings - and loan association, the mortgage facilities corporation, savings banks life insurance fund, the savings banks retirement system, an. authorized insurer as defined in section one hundred seven of the 5 insurance law, or a trust company or other corporation organized under the laws of this state all the capital stock of which is owned by at least twenty savings banks or by at least twenty savings and loan associations or a subsidiary corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by such trust company or other corporation. i i 1 i i 5 t EXHIBIT 2• Emmanuel Ku's Property Chart i i 78 yu 4 11/21/2000 Manhattan 1634 28 159 East 106 Street 12/11/2003; Manhattan 1927 32262 Frederick Douglas Blvd 14 9/18/1997 Manhattan 1953 57 368 West 127 Street 20 ' 11/21/2000 Manhattan 1958 60 420 St Nicholas Avenue ; 20 6/18/1997 Manhattan 2038 61 2866 _ Frederick Douglas Blvd _ 25 9/3/2003 Bronx 2685 3 942 Avenue St John 76 11/29/2000 Manhattan 1906 622035 Adam Clayton Powell Blvd 16 8/13/1996 Brooklyn 2789 36 181 Maujer Street 7 8/13/1996 Brooklyn 2789: 39.177 MauJ er Street 8 6/12/2003 Brooklyn 3052 26159 Graham Avenue _ _.. ,,.._ 6/12/2003 Brooklyn. 3166: 191 414 : Melrose Street 8 6112/2003 Brooklyn 3220 35 883 Hart Street 6 6/12/2003 Brooklyn 3438 42 1408 , Bushwick A venu e 9 O f f 1 1 ' I j 4 i i f Exhibit 4 • From HPD violations database as of 5/17/2011 Total Open Violations 159 East 106 St. Manhattan 78 368 West 127 St. Manhattan 17 _ f 420 St. Nicholas Ave. Manhattan 7 } 2866 Frederick Douglass Blvd Manhattan 59 r c 2262 Frederick Douglass Blvd Manhattan 80 942 Ave. St. John Bronx 171 2035 Adam C. Powell Blvd. Manhattan 40 i 181 Maujer St. Brooklyn 19 177 Maujer St. Brooklyn 7 159 Graham Ave. Brooklyn 13 i 414 Melrose St. Brooklyn 87 f • 883 Hart St. Brooklyn 50 1408 Bushwick Ave. Brooklyn 81 Total 709 EXHIBIT Alleged Slumlord Targets Hartford I Hartford Business Page I of 4 Hartford Business.com HE ... ed Slumlord Targets H a rtf o rd Seeks 150 units in Clay Arsenal neighborhood By Laura Schreier Hartford Business Journal Staff Writer 08/06/07 Emmanuel Ku has topped New York City's list of worst Laura Schreier landlords and evoked the wrath and outrage of renters' groups across three states. Now he wants to buy housing in Hartford. i � r 3 The controversial Queens, New York -based landlord was the high bidder on a May 16 Housing and Urbana Development auction for 25 residential buildings north of O in anuel i�ir,.a g r� kay E 7� r�anuel Ku. • downtown Hartford. Ku has not yet been approved to take ownership of the package of buildings, for which he bid $2 million, HUD officials said. Profit Through Neglect If approved, Ku will become the owner of 150 Hartford units, heavily concentrated near Main Street in Clay Arsenal, just north of downtown. Those properties require $4 million in repairs, according to HUD's auction notice. Lemar Wooley, a Washington -based HUD spokesman, said before Ku can be approved for ownership, the department will review his other state or federal multifamily housing. That process, Wooley said, takes a minimum of 90 days. But renters' advocates in states where Ku already does business accuse him of buying low - income properties and squeezing profits out of them by neglecting upkeep and repairs. With subsidized properties, rent checks typically come from the federal government. • In New York, Michigan and Alabama, housing advocates want him gone. http:// www. hartfordbusiness .com/news2328.html 5/24/2011 Alleged Slumlord Targets Hartford I Hartford Business Page 2 of 4 "We're currently trying to get him knocked out of the (auction) because of his terrible record," said Mary Koler of New York state's Tenants and Neighbors. Her • group has been working with residents of a Sullivan County New York building after a representative of Ku's management company bid on the building in March. Ku's 11 buildings in New York City had 1,400 code violations in 2003, a number, "which is, even by New York standards, substantial," said Dina Levy of Urban Homesteading Assistance Board. Her group, too, has had previous squabbles with Ku. Ku now owns 13 multifamily buildings in New York City. As of this May, the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development reported 667 violations in Ku's properties. Of those violations, 113 are classified as "immediately hazardous." At least one building, Pueblo de Mayaguez in the South Bronx, was acquired through a HUD auction. Rejection Urged Because of Ku and other alleged slumlords, Levy's and other renters' groups have urged HUD to reject bidders based on past building code violations. The • groups cite a certain section of HUD law that requires HUD to ensure buyers have followed "applicable state or local government housing statutes" with their other properties. So when Ku made the high bid for a complex on auction in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in 2005, renters' advocates in the area cited Section 219 to try to keep him from taking over. Although Wooley said HUD considers ownership records nationwide, renters' advocates involved with the Michigan case said they got a different story at the time. HUD officials there said bidders couldn't be rejected based on violations outside the area of purchase. Ultimately, Ku's Michigan bid was rejected because the building's owners declared bankruptcy during the auction process. He did, however, manage to buy a disability- housing unit in Birmingham, Alabama, where he has a number of disgruntled tenants. Truitt Evans, an enforcement coordinator with the nonprofit Fair Housing Center • in Alabama, said he'd received complaints from tenants in Ku's building about cost- cutting measures that hurt access for disabled tenants. http:// www. hartfordbusiness .com/news2328.htm1 5/24/2011 Alleged Slumlord Targets Hartford I Hartford Business Page 3 of 4 "More than one (tenant) told me they were being 'intimidated (by management) because they came to see me," Evans said. When Evans tried to organize a meeting on the subject, he said, the individual tenants just seemed to drop the issue. Koler, who continues to fight Ku's ownership of the upstate New York building, said Ku's high bids were the first red flag. These properties usually require millions in repairs and aren't worth the money he bids on them, as was the case in the South Bronx. "People became very suspicious of his motives," Koler said. Ku did not respond to a -mails or phone messages seeking comment. Deli for 169 years y turn. e gfi /e f C fi1411 P[iY LYiilUt41 �St1k�kS:.lrN;::tR7}a ��`li'�C �C�Wf[4iiL}'�W "Y.[kt Comments To post a comment, you must register. View our Comment FAQ. This article does not currently have any comments Post A Comment 1. Message Returning User? Please login. 1. Email • 2. Password: http:// www. hartfordbusiness .com/news2328.html 5/24/2011 Alleged Slumlord Targets Hartford I Hartford Business Page 4 of 4 Forgot your password? • or New to our site? Please create an account (Why ?) 1. First Name 2. Last Name: 3. User Name 4. Create a Password 5. Reenter Password 6. Email I Security Code Please enter the code shown below (this helps us prevent spam) Post Comment ©2011 New England Business Media Designed and Maintained by ForeSite it • http:// www. hartfordbusiness .com/news2328.htm1 5/24/2011 Debra H i l s t ro m Minnesota State Representative House of j 379 State Office Building .100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.. ' Representatives St. Paul, MN 55155 -1298 (651) 296 -3709 June 6, 2011 Marilyn M. Edge Acting Director Office of Asset Management U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C. 20410 -8000 Re: Shingle Creek Towers Apartments Dear Ms. Edge: On behalf of the residents of Shingle Creek Towers Apartments (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430), we are writing to request that HUD immediately reject Emmanuel Ku as buyer of this property and correct the underlying deficiencies in the foreclosure sale process. Shingle Creek Towers Apartments (aka View Pointe at Shingle Creek) is a 122 -unit HUD- subsidized apartment complex that has provided affordable homes to seniors, families, and people with disabilities since 1974. The affordability and ideal location of this building make it an essential resource for our community. Furthermore, substantial public investments from federal, state, county, and local governments were made in this property during a 2002 renovation, preservation, and refinancing package. Shingle Creek Towers Apartments must remain affordable for the low- income families currently residing there, as well as for those who will need this resource in the future. The effect of the foreclosure sale will harm residents and have a negative effect on the community for two reasons: 1. The high bidder at HUD's foreclosure sale is a notorious New York City landlord with thousands of code violations on his record (Emmanuel Ku). Forcing residents and the community to deal with a landlord who intentionally skirts housing maintenance standards is not an appropriate outcome of a HUD foreclosure sale. Secretary Donovan, when he was New York City's Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), consistently opposed Ku's participation in HUD foreclosure sales. HUD must immediately reject Emmanuel Ku as purchaser of the property. 3509.- 66th Ave N. Brooklyn Center Minnesota 55429 (763) 561 6487 email. rep.debra.hilstrom @house.mn Fax (651) 296 -2553 rAA s �, 2. HUD's post - foreclosure sale use requirements do away with any useful restrictions on rent increases and protections for tenants. Secretary Donovan, as HPD Commissioner, advocated vigorously for this policy. HUD must immediately revise the foreclosure sale bid package to preserve all current rent limits and tenant protections for the full length of the buildings' Use Agreements. Additionally, it is our understanding that several mission - driven for - and- non -profit affordable housing developers were present at the foreclosure sale and are interested in purchasing the property to preserve its affordability for the long term. It is in the public' "s best interest that HUD cooperates with state and local governments to identify a beneficial negotiated sale to an owner whose interest is in preserving the affordability of the housing. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Debra Hilstrom Linda Scheid State Representative State Senator CC: HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan Minnesota HUD Office Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Barbara Kane Curt Boganey, Manager City of Brooklyn Center Tim Willson, Mayor City of Brooklyn Center Work Session Agenda Item No. 6 I 1 MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 13, 2011 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning /A istant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards SUBJECT: Preview of New City Website Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council preview the new City website prior to its upcoming launch. Background: City staff has been developing a new contemporary website that is anticipated to launch June 15. In many cases, new information or services have been incorporated into the new website. The website will continue to be updated and improved over the next few months. The form and function design takes into account City goals and initiatives. A few new and improved features include: • A contemporary design, promoting a positive image and progressive character of the • City and community. • Community engagement with information and tools for City activities and community resources. • User - friendly navigation and site tools including mobile applications for residents, businesses and staff. • Advanced technology offering more online services for residents and businesses. Le. frequently asked, service requests, alerts, customer notification systems, ePermits, facebook/twitter integration The rollout of the new website complements the excitement of Brooklyn Center's year -long Centennial Celebration. Our new website will offer more information, services and convenience for current and future residents and businesses. Policy Issues: None Council Goals: Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources 0 5. We will improve the image of the City with citizens and those outside of the City's borders Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust II Presented by; M Vickie 5chlgUning r. Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards Qn half of Website o vp mpnsTg @m June 13, 2011 City Council WorkSession Overview may_. • Background • Website Development Team • Process • New Website Features • Preview Website • Q & A 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession Background .......... • Original City website since 2002 • Use of website increasing, more demand • Important marketing strategy — Homebuyers and potential businesses • Researched website companies more than two years • Chose Civicplus- good value, ease of use, great functionality, training modules and customer service, updates provided as part of contract, company-built website have won awards — Second runner up for Civicplus Extreme Website Makeover Competition • Timing- complements Brooklyn Center Centennial Celebration • Transition Items — eCitizen requests- discontinue third party program, resolve open cases or transfer into new website — Users becoming familiar with new website 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession Website Development Team • Sharon Knutson*- Administration • Patty Hartwig- Administration (IT) • Jesse Anderson- Building/Community Standards (BCS) • Rachel Thompson*- BCS, BD (no longer with City) • Nancy Wojcik- Business Development (Assessing) • Sue LaCrosse*- Community Activities & Recreation Services (CARS) • Jeannine Pfann- CARS • Linda DeBace- EBHC • Nancy Cary- Finance • Brian Peters- Police • Nate Pogorely- Police • Shelley Schwaninger*- Public Works • Julie Hanson- Public Works Note: Additional staff assisting in content development 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession Process • Design — Contemporary look and feel • Reflect progressive community, great environment — Organized and functional • User-friendly navigation, advanced technology, more online services • Considered current website user statistics • Received feedback from various user groups- staff, residents, businesses, associations, schools, realtors, etc. — Designed with flexibility- allows some modifications — Incorporates City Council goals • Efficient, cost effective customer services • Promote environment — education aspect and online services • Promote business/development- information and resources 6/13/2011 • Promote positive image of City Council WorkSession mow. • Process Content — Most requested information or focus accessible on front webpage — Existing website information updated — Additional information created — Multiple ways to find information 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession I I Highlight of Website Features • Be Notified - email and text message subscription se • News alerts to highlight current events, happenings and emergencies • Date-driven calendar to display important events and meetings • !!Notify the City"- interactive online forms, request tracker, mobile applications • Automatic integration through Facebook and Twitter (future) • Online streaming video capability • Greater search capability • Frequently asked questions 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession Preview Website BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA TOaL3 A OPCAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY r nc�w nca r GOVERNMENT SE RV ICE FkCILITIES TIE COMMUNITY BU(JINESS I M''lY1fT TO.. I.BNSS..� rJoiccme toma n#,,v Brnkr;r C9ntar b;N IdfV1 .'7EAtJnit7 alt .. --v2s.(Rex 0.1..] 0=1-1 pormt:ald ... adM1ltfo:at*area or m v%row(Road '�j r Gres—m,--rter Letevztas 1x vsais AND ,LP . � _- .-'.'ttdl vCk:'dl�tkr.. _ s:n_+-- --:G'r•_❑- ��..tltl Vtl...] . Notify the City _ CIENTERSpotlight '7q >e�-c;acc Be Notified Earle Wow DMsFestftl Jurts21-25.T*a:RWI-.' _.L Alers k1EET11iG CALEN��� � '31W—ess Em.W,I,;= ^2r1K51e1e 3^€tar Doctmer.t L'mte7 'Irevaorfis l*f Sr4 � fir;. 3�a .. Jui*2011 -- Permits&Inc-pectiOW �r 14 1R1T0gOes tore 31^ ._:.. -- ..t�11�J?`t �. -"'^`_ ' :19 171 31 Ul Srt C3 Va __{eBT47w't..-'c=-'° 5�ct ,a7C 425 fly M, 42R nQ YI 11 - ' 2*4 3 - Real Estate L:)cat:or 12 13 14 18 16 17 18 l'rerinent:v Asked 10 M 1 = 23 .'4 25 MR ALL GA'-ENDAR ITEMS — 2E 27 2E 29 30 Et M Emplovment X1 0.[r:--ter=7v.i h-r.carvrrl 17S:i�rtrr-O.ap.(crvc.n:.yp.!A••,n:F4C'*�t-rr.a 1 r,�•rw(rrtf*wcs�-. .-. --:, rt1<^.a,i-aF>c 641a'"'t t.,•ytETR4CT'JS 6+J1_*'s4b►Ott PWi-I iNatP '".er'�:tr.P.1'si 5430 . ;r_%-*SB�Dl 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession 8 I Q & A 6/13/2011 Council WorkSession 9