Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 11-13 CCP Regular Session AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 13, 2012 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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center November 13, 2012 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. October 22, 2012— Study Session 2. October 22, 2012—Regular Session 3. October 22, 2012—Work Session 4. October 29, 2012—Joint Work Session with Financial Commission b. Licenses C. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Project Budget, Improvement Project No. 2011-10, Contract 2011-G, West Palmer Park Building Replacement Improvements d. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2012-10, Earle Brown and Opportunity Area Street Lighting Replacement e. Resolution Approving Final Plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION f. Resolution Approving Final Plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 13, 2012 g. Resolution Establishing the Interest Rate for 2013 Special Assessments h. Resolution Establishing 2013 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates 7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations None. 8. Public Hearings None. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2012-021 Submitted by Loren Van Der Slik/Gatlin Development. Request for Site and Building Plan Approval for a New LA Fitness Facility, Which is also Proposed "Building J" as Illustrated and Planned in the 2011 Shingle Creels Crossing PUD Master Development Plan (1500 Shingle Creek Crossing). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its October 25, 2012, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-021 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval of Building J in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, Which is Scheduled to Become the New LA Fitness Facility— 1500 Shingle Creek Crossing Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 3300 67th Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license application and mitigation plan. b. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5224 65th Avenue North Requested Council.Action: —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license application and mitigation plan. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- November 13, 2012 C. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5712 Bryant Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license application and mitigation plan. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment City Council Agenda 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 OCTOBER 22, 2012 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven (arrived at 6:24 p.m.), Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, 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, Police Chief Kevin Benner, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Lasman stated she would like to comment, during the Consent Agenda approval, that Items 6d, Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Project Nos. 2011-01, 02, 03, and 04, Palmer Lake East Neighborhood, and 6e, Resolution Approving Final Project Budget, Improvement Project Nos. 2010-05, 06, 07, 08, Contract 2010-B, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements, are both under budget. Councilmembers Ryan and Myszkowski stated their support to allow comment on those two items to call attention to the good work of staff and that the City is getting good bids. Mayor Willson advised of Charter Commission appointments. Councilmember Ryan stated he had asked Housing Commission Vice Chair Judy Thorbus to apply should another opening occur because she has demonstrated outstanding service to the City. Councilmember Ryan stated he had sent questions to Mr. Boganey about the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Brooklyn Bridge Alliance and the contribution of Hennepin County. He noted the County will contribute $25,000 this year and $50,000 in 2013 and 2014. Councilmember Ryan noted this funding commitment by Hennepin County during budget constraints indicates the City Council made a good decision to approve a larger contribution. Mayor Willson agreed the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance is a worthy cause that the City has been working on for a long time. Councilmember Myszkowski concurred. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Myszkowski reported that during the last Housing Commission meeting, the 10/22/12 -1- DRAFT i Chair asked if there are protocols around the Chairs being notified when a new member is appointed. The Chair would like to be in attendance at the City Council meeting so she can introduce herself and welcome the new appointee. Mayor Willson noted the Chairs are lettered and it is on the City Council's agenda. Councilmember Myszkowski stated in her capacity as City Council liaison she would notify the Chair when an appointment will be made. Councilmember Ryan asked whether the hours for voting will be the same as the City Hall service desk's business hours. City Manager Curt Boganey suggested City Clerk Knutson provide that information because there may be extended hours on certain days. Councilmember Lasman stated she observed sandwich signs at a Mexican restaurant and asked staff to remind the owners if that is a violation. Mr. Boganey stated staff will follow up on that situation, noting the ordinance does allow a certain number of days for a temporary permit. The City Council addressed an e-mail received from a constituent relating to on-going and questionable activities in a parking lot and suggested he continue to call the Police Department whenever that activity is observed. Mr. Boganey stated this matter will be referred to the Police Department. Police Chief Benner advised that an officer would be assigned to this issue if called into the Police Department. Councilmember Kleven arrived at 6:24 p.m. Councilmember Kleven asked to address Agenda Item l Ob, Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth Joint Powers Agreement and Approving Allotment of Unassigned General Fund Net Assets. She thanked City Manager Boganey and all who worked on the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance and asked about the timing to hire an Executive Director. Mr. Boganey reported advertisement for that position will occur within the next few weeks with an expected hire date in December and start in January. He reported an application has been submitted for a$50,000 foundation grant: Mayor Willson noted the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance is the initiative of former Brooklyn Park Mayor Steve Lampi and work of City Managers, department heads, and Park & Recreation Departments of both cities. He extended his appreciation for the involvement of Mr. Boganey, staff, and Brooklyn Park City Manager Verbrugge. Mr. Boganey pointed out it is also important to make appointments from each elected body to comprise the voting board and actively engage in leadership going forward. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS LIMIT ON NUMBER OF DOGS City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, noting Andrea Knodel of 6030 Aldrich Ave. N. had presented the concern of her neighbor at 6036 Aldrich relating to the two dog restriction in City Ordinance 1-109. He indicated this is an issue that comes up with 11-12 calls per year and all get resolved voluntarily once residents are aware the City's limit is two dogs. It was noted 10/22/12 -2- DRAFT i the limit on dogs has been two for at least 30 years.Now a request has been made, once again,to modify that number. The City Council discussed its consistent enforcement of the City's ordinance that limits the maximum number of dogs at two, noting it is sometimes difficult and an emotional issue. It was noted that the City's ordinance is not offered in Spanish, as mentioned by Ms. Knodel, so some residents are not aware of this regulation. Mr. Boganey indicated staff is considering options to make the ordinance available in more languages and including it periodically in the City's newsletter. The City Council suggested a copy of this ordinance be included in new resident Welcome Bags. Councilmember Kleven presented her research of ordinances from ten other communities. Councilmember Lasman described the City's past issuance of kennel licenses and resulting exponential increase in dog related complaints that resulted in no longer granting kennel licenses and limiting the number of dogs. The unanimous consensus of the City Council was to not consider an amendment to Ordinance 1-109 and Mr. Boganey was asked to so notify Ms. Knodel. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Study Session at 6:43 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. SUCCESS TARGET UPDATE Mr. Boganey introduced the item and reviewed that in March, the City Council had talked about success indicators related to Goal #1: Reduce violent crime by 10% or more each year; and, reduce property crimes by 10% or more each year. He noted that even though successful over the last several years to meet or exceed that reduction, the crime rate would get to a point of plateau. The City Council had discussed the fact that "Part 1 crimes" is such a broad term and covers a lot of different crimes so it may not be the best measure of success in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Boganey stated staff is suggesting the City look at the four Part 1 crimes that created the greatest impact on residents' and businesses' sense of safety and security and to develop success indicators that would be more reflective of success. 10/22/12 -3- DRAFT Police Chief Kevin Benner stated the City Council discussed in March how to measure crime reductions and impact. Since 2007, Part 1 crimes have declined 40%, an outstanding number but to continue that decline is a challenge. Chief Benner reviewed current strategies in place for reduction of domestic aggravated assaults and difficulty in impacting non-domestic aggravated assaults. With regard to larceny, he explained that a large percentage relates to theft and shoplifting. The number of shoplifting arrests is up significantly, 36 in the last 30 days, at Walmart alone due to its aggressive loss prevention efforts. Chief Benner noted that while there has been a reduction in theft of automobiles, there is a spike in larceny crimes due to those increased shoplifting arrests. Chief Benner recommended reporting Part 1 crimes in a way that is easy to understand so residents can retain the message and asked the Council to consider expanding the measurable outcomes for Part 1 crimes to encompass specific crimes within that category: aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, and larceny. Mayor Willson stated he is not opposed to including values and refining goals based on general categories but does not want to lose sight of the Police Department's success in reducing Part 1 crimes by 40%. He agreed that a 10% per year reduction in Part 1 crimes is probably unrealistic across the board. Discussion on this item continued and reached conclusion at the October 22, 2012, Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to close the Study Session at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 10/22/12 -4- 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 OCTOBER 22, 2012 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, Lin Myszkowski, 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, Police Chief Kevin Benner, 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. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, announced the opening of Taco Bell and the Luther Honda Toyota Dealership, and presented the Shop Local flyer. Ms. Sannes invited all to attend the dedication of the last bus shelter by National Tire and Battery. She commented on the recent passing of Random Acts of Kindness Recipient Mike Mulinix and conveyed his thanks to the City for this recognition. Mayor Willson indicated Mr. Mulinix's family had received the Random Acts of Kindness Award earlier today so it would be available at his service. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Myszkowski offered the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 10/22/12 -1- DRAFT The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, City Clerk Sharon Knutson, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, Police Chief Kevin Benner, 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, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. October 1, 2012—Joint Work Session with Financial Commission 2. October 8, 2012—Study Session 3. October 8, 2012_Regular Session 4. October 15, 2012— Special Meeting 5. October 15, 2012—Joint Work Session with Financial Commission 6b. LICENSES COMMERCIAL KENNEL Gentle Touch Animal Sanctuary 4900 France Avenue N. Paws Inn, LLP 4902 France Avenue N. MECHANICAL Heins Plumbing &Heating 13140 Basswood Lane, Rogers Hi—Tech Heating &A/C 10035 Pillsbury Avenue S.,Bloomington Ike's Pluming&Drain Cleaning 6497 Hokah Drive, Lino Lakes Woody's Heating and A/C 300 Bates Avenue, St. Paul Michal's HHH, Inc. 2779 161St Avenue NW, Anoka MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Luther Brookdale Toyota; Luther Brookdale Scion; and, Luther Brookdale 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard Toyota Scion 10/22/12 -2- DRAFT i RENTAL— CURRENT RENTAL STANDARDS INITIAL (TYPE III—one-year license) The Crest, 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway Danelle Weintzweig INITIAL (TYPE II—two-year license) 133967 1h Lane N. Konrad Wagner 532872 nd Circle N. Shuxing (Mark) Sun 4013 Joyce Lane Fredrick Heim 7019 Morgan Avenue N. Candlewood Home Buyers 819 Woodbine Lane Audrey Norberg 6670 Xerxes Place N. Dolores Fischer RENEWAL (TYPE III—one-year license) The Lilacs, 5800 & 5830 Logan Avenue N. Farnaz Toussi 284167 th Lane N. Brooke Berner 5436 Logan Avenue N. Shane Mclean RENEWAL (TYPE I—three-year license) 5843 Fremont Avenue N. D &J Properties LLC 5337 70th Circle Gary Bistodeau 5900 Pearson Drive Mary T. Inc. SIGNHANGER Sign A Rama 5640 W. Broadway, Crystal VEO Signs LLC 6353 Martin Avenue NE, Otsego 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-134 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR MONTY ADDITION 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-135 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, PROJECT NO. 2011=01, 02, 03, AND 04, PALMER LAKE EAST NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-136 APPROVING FINAL PROJECT BUDGET, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010-05, 06, 07, AND 08, CONTRACT 2010-B, TWIN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The City Council commended staff for its wise fiscal decisions resulting in Items 6d, Project No. 2011-01, 02, 03, and 04, Palmer Lake East Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements, and 6e, Project Nos. 2010-05, 06, 07, and 08, Contract 2010-13, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements, coming in under budget by more than 8%. Motion passed unanimously. 10/22/12 -3- DRAFT 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF RICH STANEK ANNUAL REPORT Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek congratulated Councilmember M szkowski on her election to the City Council. He introduced Officer Kip Carter and then provided updates on Countywide crime trends, drug trends, prescription drug disposal program, and the communications facility. Mayor Willson commended Sheriff Stanek on the close working relationship between his Department and the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The City Council indicated it is proud of its Police Department and thanked Sheriff Stanek for his work on behalf of the City's and County's residents. 7b. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-137 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF MURIEL LEE FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Mayor Willson read in full a resolution expressing recognition and appreciation of Muriel Lee for her dedicated public service on the Park and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-137 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Muriel Lee for her Dedicated Public Service on the Park and Recreation Commission. Motion passed unanimously. 7c. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 22, 2012, TO BE DESIGNATED AS RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS DAY City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, indicating that since 1997 the City has recognized random acts of kindness throughout the community that make Brooklyn Center a better place to live. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve PROCLAMATION Declaring October 22, 2012, to be Designated as Random Acts of Kindness Day. Mayor Willson read in full a proclamation declaring October 22, 2012, to be designated as Random Acts of Kindness Day in the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS PRESENTATION AND RECOGNITION AND CERTIFICATE CEREMONY 10/22/12 -4- DRAFT Councilmembers read nominations and Mayor Willson presented certificates to the following recipients in recognition of their Random Acts of Kindness: Annie Anderson, Nicole Person, Karol Baumeister and Gretchen Trudeau of Brown College, Jesse Gully and The Crossings at Brookwood, Sarah Prentice and Prairie Seeds Academy Students, Betty Byrnes, Ray Christensen, Tracy and Chad Hartfiel with their dog Petey, Dana Anderson of Brooklyn Center Cub Foods, Guy and Bonnie Madsen, and Mike Mulinix. Councilmember Ryan announced that Pastor Mike Mulinix had passed on October 18, 2012, and stated this award is a great memento for his outstanding career. Mayor Willson indicated Mike's family had already received his award so it could be displayed at his service this evening. Councilmembers continued to read nominations and Mayor Willson presented certificates to the following recipients in recognition of their Random Acts of Kindness: Darlene Olson, Larry and Nancy Person, and Lester Ragan. Mayor Willson extended the City Council's congratulations to all recipients and thanked them for making Brooklyn Center a better community. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS —None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS —None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS I 10a. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6819 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH A304 Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning advised that 6819 Humboldt Avenue North A304 was inspected and ten property code violations were cited and ultimately corrected. There have been two validated police incidents/nuisance calls within the last 12 months. This property qualifies for a Type IV six-month provisional rental license based on the number of property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection. The property owner is also required to submit a mitigation plan and report monthly on the progress of that plan. Ms. Schleuning reviewed actions taken in regard to this rental license application and indicated Staff has reviewed that mitigation plan and held discussion with the property owner and recommends approval based on meeting standards in the mitigation plan. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the hearing. 10/22/12 -5- DRAFT i Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for 6819 Humboldt Avenue North A304, with the requirement that the mitigation plan must be strictly adhered to before a renewal rental license would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-138 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AND APPROVING ALLOTMENT OF UNASSIGNED GENERAL FUND NET ASSETS Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history of this consideration, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution to authorize execution of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. The JPA establishes a funding mechanism to propel this effort forward, would take effect immediately, and terminate on December 31, 2014, unless an extension is approved. It was noted the City's commitment is equal to the City of Brooklyn Park at$50,000 for three years. Councilmember Myszkowski noted the JPA indicates North Hennepin Community College and Hennepin Technical College are advisory partners instead of full partners. City Attorney LeFevere advised it is the request of North Hennepin Community College and Hennepin Technical College to be placed in that advisory capacity since neither have statutory authority to serve as full partners. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-138 Authorizing Execution of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth Joint Powers Agreement and Approving Allotment of Unassigned General Fund Net Assets. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following: • October 15, 2012, Evaluation of City Manager Boganey's Job Performance • October 15, 2012, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission • October 16, 2012, Earle Brown Days Board Meeting to plan for 2013 Earle Brown Days 10/22/12 -6- DRAFT • October 16, 2012, Housing Commission Meeting Councilmember Myszkowski invited the public to attend the grand opening celebration of the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) Northwest Family Service Center on October 25,2012. Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following: • October 11, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting • October 15, 2012, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission • October 16, 2012, Brooklyn Center High School Parent Night • October 16, 2012, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting • October 13, 2012, Brooklyn Center Girl Scouts Event to clear storm sewers and distribute door hangers identifying storm drains Councilmember Kleven provided the September housing sales update and announced that Taco Bell and the Luther Honda and Toyota Dealership are open for business. Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following: • October 8, 2012, Board of Appeal Training for Local Officials • October 15, 2012, Evaluation of City Manager Boganey's Job Performance • October 15, 2012, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission Councilmember Ryan encouraged citizens to exercise their civic obligation on November 6, 2012, and vote at the election or to take advantage of the option to vote early at City Hall. Councilmember Lasman reported on her attendance at the following: • October 15, 2012, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission • October 17, 2012, Crime Prevention Meeting Councilmember Lasman thanked the Brooklyn Center Girl Scouts for their work on October 13, 2012,to clean organic material from the storm drains in the southwest area of Brooklyn Center. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following: • October 15, 2012, Evaluation of City Manager Boganey's Job Performance. Mayor Willson reported that City Manager Boganey received a very favorable performance review and extended the appreciation of the City Council for his commitment to Brooklyn Center. He asked Mr. Boganey to include an agenda item at the next Work Session to consider the City Manager's compensation. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:13 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 10/22/12 -7- 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 . OCTOBER 22, 2012 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 8:13 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. SUCCESS TARGET UPDATE City Manager Curt Boganey displayed a chart depicting a Part 1 crime rate comparison and asked the City Council/EDA to consider a two-pronged approach. He explained staff recommends determining an objective goal as one measure of success as opposed to the current 10% annual reduction goal. Staff suggests using the Hennepin County index for Part 1 crimes as being one potential measure of success. He referenced the chart on display, noting the Brooklyn Center line for Part 1 crimes is higher than that of Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, or the State of Minnesota. Mr. Boganey indicated staff thinks Brooklyn Center can achieve the level of Hennepin County or its per capita rate over time and believes that is a reasonable measure of success. Staff recommends establishing the Hennepin County index as one measure of success in each of the Part 1 Crime categories. Mr. Boganey stated staff also recommends establishing annual objectives in the four categories identified earlier by Police Chief Benner (larceny, domestic aggravated assault/non-domestic aggregated assault, robbery, burglary) since those categories are critical elements of crime that have the greatest impact on an individual's sense of security and safety in the community. For those particular categories, staff recommends annual objectives of a 10% reduction or greater each year with the exception of larceny, which is recommended at 5%. Mr. Boganey explained larceny is recommended at 5% because much of that category is made up of crimes like shoplifting where proactive efforts create higher numbers. Mayor Willson noted the City should see a decline in property thefts but he would like to see an increase in shoplifting arrests to assure the businesses are being proactive in theft prevention. Mr. Boganey stated that is correct in the short term; however, in the long term shoplifting arrests 10/22/12 -1- DRAFT should decrease to show that loss control measures are taking effect and discouraging shoplifting. Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman noted it is not just Walmart but also other retail operations that come into the area. The City needs to stress the importance of loss prevention efforts so the message gets across that Brooklyn Center is not the town to do shoplifting. The City Council/EDA discussed the trend of Part 1 crimes and reached consensus to support staff's recommendation. It was agreed that continuing the annual 10% reduction is not as effective long term and that aggregating data will better address crimes that most impact Brooklyn Center's residents and create easily understood statistics. The City Council/EDA agreed that the 40% reduction in Type 1 crimes since 2007 shows how effective the Police Department has been, that it is well staffed and administered. Mayor/President Willson extended the appreciation of the City Council/EDA to Police Chief Benner for his leadership and asked him to extend that appreciation to the entire Police Department. Mr. Boganey indicated updated crime statistics would be presented in January of 2013 prior to the City Council/HRA retreat. Mayor/President Willson asked Mr. Boganey to add this discussion to the City Council/HRA retreat agenda. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to direct staff to draft new policy language as discussed for incorporation into the strategic plan. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 8:32 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 10/22/12 -2- DRAFT i 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 OCTOBER 29, 2012 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 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present: City Manager Curt Boganey, Finance Director Dan Jordet, Earle Brown Heritage Center Manager Bruce Ballanger, Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum, and Assist City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning (arrived at 6:34 p.m.). Others present were Financial Commissioners Steve Landis, Rex Newman, Dean Van Der Werf, and Teneshia Kragness (arrived at 6:34 p.m.). INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW City Manager Curt Boganey stated this evening was to continue reviewing proposed budgets for Enterprise Funds and that the Golf Course Fund would be discussed at the next meeting. Tonight the focus would be on the Earle Brown Heritage Center, Liquor Stores, and also a continued discussion on utility rates. EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER Earle Brown Heritage Center Manager Bruce Ballanger provided an overview of the Administration, Convention Center, Catering, and Commercial Office Rental at the Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC). He discussed the annual goals and strategies, requested budget adjustments, and the capital improvement fund. Finance Director Dan Jordet discussed the cash flows and stated that the projected $200,000 in the years to come creates a positive cash flow through 2018. BC LIQUOR STORES#1 AND #2 Finance Director Jordet provided an overview of the two liquor stores distribution, staff, annual goals and strategies, cash flows, and upcoming repairs and improvements. He informed that both stores are profitable and that in 2013 health care benefits may need to be provided to some of the part time employees. City Manager Boganey added that there may be other part time 10/29/2012 -1- DRAFT i employees that will fall under new guidelines for part time employee health care benefits and that a full analysis could be done for City Council approval if so desired. UTILITY RATES Finance Director Jordet discussed since the last meeting he had prepared new scenarios mixing debt to take rates a little bit lower and outlined them as follows: Current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) financed solely with rate adjustments; current CIP Plan financed with combination rate adjustment and minimal debt; current CIP Plan financed with lower rate increases and moderate debt; and current CIP Plan financed with even lower rate increases and recurring debt. There was discussion regarding the four options and consensus was to move forward with the current CIP Plan financed with even lower rate increases and recurring debt. NEXT MEETING—NOVEMBER 5,2012 The next meeting will be held on November 5, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. MISCELLANEOUS There was discussion regarding the Legislative Policy Issues for 2013 and if a Council Member should be delegated. City Manager Boganey stated that an item could be placed on an agenda to discuss and delegate a Council Member. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adjourn the Work Session at 7:54 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 10/29/2012 -2- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses at its November 13, 2012. 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. MECHANICAL 7 Metro Heating and A/C 609 150th Avenue NE, Ham Lake Bloomington Heating and Air 640 W 92nd Street,Bloomington Cashion HVAC Services, Inc. 4148 Jansen Avenue NE, St. Michael DLT Heating & Cooling, LLC 283 Myrtle Drive S, Annandale First Choice Plumbing &Heating,LLC 29948 Highway 47 NW, Isanti Mike's Custom Mechanical 4142 Upton Avenue N, Minneapolis Quality Heating, A/C and Appliance 16798232,d Avenue N, Big Lake R R Gilpin Plumbing, Inc. 321 2nd Street W, Jordan Total Comfort 4000 Winnetka Avenue N,New Hope RENTAL See attached report. Mission:Ensuring an attractive.,clean,saje,inclusive community that enhanees the quality of lijP. for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 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 I—3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+;units 0;0.75 Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+:units Greater than'0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3±units Greater than 1.5 but.not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+'units :Greater than:3 License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-.0:25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4,units . Greater than,0:25: -but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4-units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Fnswing an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life fir all people and preserves the public trust City Council Agenda Item No. 6c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer ' SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Approving Final Project Budget, Improvement Project No. 2011-10, Contract 2011-G, West Palmer Park Building Replacement Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the resolution accepting work performed and approving the final project budget for Improvement Project No. 2011-10, Contract 2011-G, West Palmer Park Building Replacement. Background: On August 22, 2011, the City Council awarded Contract 2011-G to Ebert Construction of Corcoran, Minnesota, for the West Palmer Park Building Replacement Project. Ebert Construction has successfully completed the project work and the project has been finalized. Budget Issues: The original contract amount with Ebert Construction for the project was $247,200.00. The total value of work certified for final payment is $247,200.00. The total project cost including contingencies, administration, engineering and legal is $305,064.53. The project was completed less than 1%under budget in the amount of$1,515.47. The attached resolution provides a summary of costs and funding sources for the project. Council Goals: Strategic: 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality,of fife .for all people and preserves the public trust i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND APPROVING FINAL PROJECT BUDGET, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2011-10, CONTRACT 2011-G, WEST PALMER PARK BUILDING REPLACEMENT WHEREAS,pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,Ebert Construction of Corcoran,Minnesota has completed the following improvements in accordance with said Contract: Improvement Project No. 2011-10, Contract 2011-G, West Palmer Park Building Replacement NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Final payment was made on Improvement Project No. 2011-10, Contract 2011-G, West Palmer Park Building Replacement, taking the contractor's receipt in full. The total amount paid for said improvements under said Contract is $247,200.00. 2. The project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Original Award As Final Contract $ 247,200.00 $ 247,200.00 Miscellaneous Costs $ 28,480.00 $ 27,074.73 Admin/Legal/Engr. $ 15,900.00 $ 18,201.80 Contingency $ 15,000.00 $ 12,588.00 Total Project Cost $ 306,580.00 $ 305,064.53 REVENUES As Original Award As Final Capital Improvements Fund (40100) $ 306,580.00 $ 305,064.53 Total Revenue $ 306,580.00 $ 305,064.53 November 13 2012 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. i City Council Agenda Item Igo. 6d i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer S� SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2012-10, Earle Brown and Opportunity Area Street Lighting Replacement Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the lowest responsible bid and award a contract to Killmer Electric Company for Improvement Project No. 2012-10, Earle Brown and Opportunity Area Street Lighting Replacement. Background: Originally, this project was first bid in early October. Bids were received with the lowest bid being approximately 54% above the budgeted amount. The bids were determined to be reasonable, but the original estimating was inaccurate. On October 8, 2012, the City Council rejected said bids. The project scope was subsequently revised, and the project was rebid. Bids for the rebid of the Earle Brown and Opportunity Area Street Lighting Replacement, Project No. 2012-10, contract were received and opened on November 1, 2012. The bidding results are tabulated below: BIDDER TOTAL Killmer Electric Company $ 220,883.00 Egan Company $ 229,222.00 Of the two (2) bids received, the lowest bid of$220,883.00 was submitted by Killmer Electric Company of Crystal, Minnesota. Killmer Electric Company has the experience, equipment and capacity to qualify as the lowest responsible bidder for the project. Budget Issues: The bid amount of $220,883.00 is slightly higher than the budgeted amount ($217,000); however, it is staff's opinion that this is a reasonable bid amount. The total estimated budget including administration, engineering and legal was $232,000 and is amended to $235,883.00. The attached resolution provides an estimated summary of costs and funding sources for the project. Council Goals: Strategic: 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Mission;Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community,that enhancer the duality,of life for all people and preserves the.public trust i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.2012-10,EARLE BROWN AND OPPORTUNITY AREA STREET LIGHTING REPLACEMENT WHEREAS,pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No.2012- 10, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer on the 1sT day of November, 2012. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Total Killmer Electric Company $220,883.00 Egan Company $229,222.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Killmer Electric Company of Crystal, Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Killmer Electric Company of Crystal,Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center,for Improvement Project No.2012-10,according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: Amended COSTS CIP budget per Low Bid Lighting Contract $217,000.00 $220,883.00 Admin/Legal/Engr. $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $232,000.00 $235,883.00 Amended REVENUES CIP Budget per Low Bid Capital Improvement Funds $232,000.00 $235,883.00 November 13 2012 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 110. 6e COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Final Plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council' consider the resolution approving final plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION Background: The Brooklyn Center City Council approved the proposed preliminary plat based upon certain conditions (see attached conditions of approval, City Council Resolution No. 2012-101). The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission reviewed and recommended the FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION final plat on October 25, 2012 (see attached resolution, Planning Commission Resolution 2012-24). The attached final plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION was developed and would combine the following existing properties: part of Lot 1, Block 1, Dale and Davies Addition and Lot 1, Block 1, Tennis Acres Two. The applicant is now seeking final plat approval from the City Council. The final plat is recommended for approval subject to the conditions established by the City Engineer, conditions established by the City Attorney based on a review of an updated title commitment provided by the applicant (within the past 30 days), conditions as previously approved by the City Council, and any conditions established by Hennepin County or the Minnesota Department of Transportation for recording of the plat documents. Budget Issues: The applicant has paid a final plat application fee of$125 and must reimburse the City for any additional engineering, administrative, legal or other fees associated with the filing and recording of the final plat. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive coninumity that enhances the quality of life � for all people mid preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION WHEREAS,the Planning"Commission has recommended approval for the final plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION based on certain conditions as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 2012-24 and the City Council Resolution No. 2012-101; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for approval of the final plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION as required by City Code. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the final plat for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions as previously required by the City Council pertaining to the development's Preliminary Plan approval in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 2012-101. 2. Conditions as previously recommended by the Planning Commission pertaining to the final plat in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-24. 3. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's final plat review memorandum dated October 19, 2012. 4. Evidence of title satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer, 5. Any other conditions as established by Hennepin County and/or the Minnesota Department of Transportation for recording of said Final Plat. 6. Prior to release by the City of the final, approved plat, the owner must reimburse the City the full amount of legal fees incurred by the City in obtaining a review or opinion of title. November 13 2012 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. Member Dany Ryan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2012-101 ` RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED . DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2012-009, SUBMITTED BY RER ACQUISITIONS, LLC; FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4001 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS,Planning Commission Application No. 2012-009 submitted by Paul Hyde,President of RER Acquisitions LLC, requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat of a new subdivision to be titled FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION,which is a replat of two contiguous parcels generally located and addressed as 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North (Subject Site); and WHEREAS,this plat is requested to combine two separate lots into a single lot for the overall benefit of the new France Avenue Business Center 4 project,to be located on the Subject Site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 28,2012,whereby this item was given full due consideration,a staff report was:presented,and a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, which were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the preliminary plat materials,submitted with Planning Application No. 2012-009,that said plat is in general conformance with City of Brooklyn Center's City Code Chapter 15-Platting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 20120-12, which provides a favorable recommendation to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2012-009 as submitted by RER Acquisitions LLC, requesting Preliminary Plat consideration of a new subdivision to be titled FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, be approved based upon the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated June 14 2012 (and those related to the PUD review of March 28, 2012 and Development/Site and Building Plan review of April 20, 2012) shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals. 2. Any easements to be vacated under this platting process must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor. I RESOLUTION NO. 2012-H1 3. The.,final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer, . Prior to release by the City for recording purposes. 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.5 of the City Ordinances. . 5. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application(within 30 days of release of the final plat). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2012-009 as submitted by RER Acquisitions LLC, requesting Preliminary Plat consideration of a new subdivision to be:titled FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, is approved subject to the same conditions memorialized herein. July 23,2012 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lin Myszkowski and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof- Tim Willson, Carol Kleven; Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan; and the following voted against the same: done; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. . MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19, 2012 t TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor SUBJECT: Public Works—Final Plat Review for FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION Public Works Department staff reviewed the final plat submittal dated October 3, 2012, for the proposed FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION and provide the following conditions: General: 1. All comments and conditions indicated in the June 14, 2012,Preliminary Plat review memorandum from Public Works are included by reference. 2. 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). 3. A permanent Drainage and Wall Maintenance easement on the MNDOT turn back property is required and must be filed with the plat. 4. An easement vacation application must be submitted with the required fee. 5. The utilities facilities agreements must be filed with the final plat. 6. Submit a clean copy of Exhibit B of the utilities facilities agreement. 7. A sidewalk easement with revised easement exhibit is required and must be filed with the plat. 8. The declaration of covenants and restrictions and subdivision agreement must be filed with the final plat. 9. Submit two mylar copies of the final plat signed by the surveyor and owner. 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) and final 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 may require additional modifications as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. i Commissioner Leino introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-24 RESOLUTION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, LOCATED AT 4001 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH AS SUBMITTED BY PAUL HYDE OF TWIN LAKES IV, INC. WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2012-009 was previously submitted by Paul Hyde, President of RER Acquisitions LLC (Applicant), requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat of a new subdivision to be titled FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, which is a replat of two contiguous parcels generally located and addressed as 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North(Subject Site); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on June 28, 2012, whereby the Preliminary Plat of France Avenue Business Park Addition was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding the preliminary plat, and the Planning Commission subsequently adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-12, which recommended the City Council approve said Preliminary Plat of France Avenue Business Park Addition;and; WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2012-009 at its July 23, 2012 meeting, and in light of all testimony received and affirmed the Planning Commission's recommendations, and adopted City Resolution No. 2012-101, which approved the Preliminary Plat of FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, subject to the following considerations: 1. The recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated June 14 2012 (and those related to the PUD review of March 28, 2012 and Development/Site and Building Plan review of April 20, 2012) shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals. 2. Any easements to be vacated under this platting process must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits signed by a licensed surveyor. 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer, prior to release by the City for recording purposes. . I 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. I 5. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final.plat application(within 30 days of release of the final plat). AND NOW WHEREAS, Paul Hyde, as Chief Executive Officer of Twin Lakes IV, Inc., has submitted an application for the FINAL PLAT of FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, which remains the replat of two contiguous parcels generally located and addressed as 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission considered the Final Plat of France Avenue Business Park Addition at the October 25, 2012 study session meeting, at which time a staff memorandum and supporting documentation of said final plat was presented; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission determined during its review that said final plat to be in general conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat of France Avenue Business Park Addition, that all conditions have been or will be met by the Applicant prior to release by the City of the final plat for recording purposes; and the final plat is in general conformance with City Code Chapter 15—Platting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the Final Plat of France Avenue Business Park Addition, as submitted by Paul Hyde, President of RER Acquisitions LLC and on behalf of Twin Lakes IV, Inc. be approved, that all conditions noted under City Resolution 2012101 remain in effect and subject to com etion b pplicant. October 25, 2012 Date Chair ATTEST: 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 Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Leino Morgan and Schonning and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 of 2 R.T. OOC. NO, FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARIS ADDITION C-R. DOG. NO. i KNOW ALL PERSONS 13Y THESE PRESENTS: That Twin Lakes IV.Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation,fee awn er of the foflowing described property situated fn the County of Hennepin,Sta Le of klinneso€a, to-wit: The registered por lion is described as. Lot 1,Block 1 Tennis A.—Two.Hennepin County,Minnesota. Lot 1,Block 1,Hole end Dories 2rd Addition,a cept that part thereof embraced within Lot 8,Black I,"Lakehreeze Addition,Hennepin Cannily,Minnesota", decerd',ng to the pT.L thereof an r.and of record I. the.Rice of the Reglstrcr of Titles io and for Hennepin C...ty N:nnesota; which lie=westerly of Line 1 satmed below: Line 1: Co—imeing at Right of Way Boundary Corner Ulu as shown on RINOOT Right of Way Plot No. 27--125; thence westerly an rt azimuth of 255 degrees 49 minutes 46 eccnds slang the boundary of said plat far 225.71 feet to Right f Yfay Boundary c r B9 and the paint of beginrving of Lina d to be descrbed; (Fence o -much of 120 degrees 07 m7nutea 12 seconds far 131.00{eel; Lhence ae enuth If 131 degrees 54 minutes 46 s ands for 121.95 feet(which cour Tntars .the east line of above portion of Let 1 1lereinbefor¢dcecrthod et a point thereon,distant 96.57 feet south of U1e northeast corner thereof): Lhence on on moth of 159 degrees 16 minutes 25 seconds for 36.98 feet; thence en an azimuth of 174 degrees 16 minutes 01 mind for 37.02 feet; thence o rcuth of 193 degrees.55 minutes 43 a Dods for 39.03 feet to o point hereinofter referred to no Paint`A`; thence anti-e o multi of 393 degrees 155 m notes 4.3 s Dods for 133.66 feel;.the...a azlmoth of 220 degrees 22 minutes 39 seconds 66,69 fdeti thc—a mu{ry of 270 degree.53 rob,otes 36 s Bonds for 6.25 feet to Right of WaynBOUndary Comer B7 o shaw�a said plat 27-125; thence c moth of 27o degrees 53 mutes 3A seconds tong the bean dory of said pt¢t fro 0.06 Toa1 to the south...I.c r ofnabave portion of Lot 1' thence CITY COUNCIL,City of Brooklyn Centel,Minnesota ontin�ve o emuth of 270 degrees 53 miaa ley 36 minute-%along boon dory of said plat and the south line of ebovea portion of Lot 1, for 149.68 feel to Right of Way Baundory Corner 11.cod there t ooinati¢g. s This plat of FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION w appro c ens oc eptee, the City Council of the City of Woyzate,kf"mnesota of o regular The abstract partfon to described as. meeting thereof held (Fie_clay of a20_—and said plat is m wmplianae with the proWSionS of Rtianesata Statutes, Section 505.03, ; Subd.2. j That part of Let 1,Black 1,Doi,and Curies 2nd Addition,according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder In and far Hennepin County,Minnesato,embraced within Let 8,Block 1.°Lokebreeae Addition,Hennepin County,Minnesota`%Ruch All westedy of Line 1 descrbed CITY CCL1NCIL,City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota below: ITr2e 1� By_ Moyer By Manager 1 Commenting at Rlghi of Way Boundary Carner B10 as shovm on MNDOT Righl of Way Plat No. 27-125; thence ..terly o an azimuth eT 255 degrees 49 'notes 48 seconds at" the boundary of said plot far 225.71 legit to Right of Way Boun dory comer 69 and the point of beginningf Line 1 to be descrbed; thence o alimuth of 120 degrees 07 minutes 12 seconds far 131.OR feet; thence on o enuth of 131 degrees 54 minutes 46 seconds for 12F,95 tees(which caur Intersects the east line of obova por Non of Iat 1 harainbefora descrbed at a point thereon,distant 96.57 feet south of the ar the.at a er tkerea F} thence o multi of 159 dogmas 16 mnotes 25 ei Dads for 36.98 feet; thence o moth of 174 degrees 15 m1¢uics ai ,econd for 37.02 feet; thence o ozimu{h of 193 degrees,55 muules 43 eaaonds for 34.03 feel to a point here natter crewed to as Paint`A thence .-tin-a azl n.th of 1193 degrees 55 minu Les 43 s ands far 33,68 feet; thence a asimuth of 220 degrees 22 minutes 313 s ands 8699 feat; thence o n a as,1—lh of 270 degrees 53 minute.36.....as for 6.25 feet to Right of Way Boundary Carner B7 s shown an sold Plate 27-125: tt,e nee on TAXPAYER SERVI-FS DEPARTWENT,Hennepin County,MI—Ii. mule of 270 degrees 53 minutes 36 s ands along the boundary of sold plot for 0.06 foot to the southeast ro of above per ion of Lot 1; thence anti_a moth of 270 degrees 53 m notes 36 minutes along boundary or said pie(end the sough line of abe-portion of Lot 1, tar 149,69 feet to I hereby cerlify that loxes payable in and prtcr yeors have been pald far land described an this plat, doted ITII, Right of Way Baundory Cam of Q8 and there te-minctT,g. day of __.20 Hascaused the some to be su veyed and pcatted as FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARX AOOITICN and does hereby dedicate to the public for poblie use the By- Mark V.Chapin,Hennepin County Auditor By. Deputy avenue and drounage and u h7 lyrcasemeats coated by thin plot. In witness wh.-cf,sold Twin Lakes IV.Inc.,has caused these prescMa to be signed by Its proper ef—this doy of 20— Twin Lakes IV,line_ By its— — SURVEY OMSION.Hennepin Caanty.Minnesato Pursuant to MN.STAY. Sec.3836.565(1969), this plat has been oppreved this_-day of 20___. STATE OF COUNTY OF__ "illmn P_Brown.Caunly Surveyor By. The lore9oing instrument w acknowledged before this doy of 20_,by Us of Twin Lakes nf.Inc.,a Minnesato corporation,on beh.l€of sold wrperatlan. I I signature notary printed name Na Lary Public, _ Cavnty, _____ REGISTRAR OF TITLES,Hennepin County,Minnesato M Commissien Ex 1 hereby cerlify that the within plat of FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION was Lied nt this oWco,this doy of 20-� at My pares- _-o'clock_M. Rachel Smith,Acting Reglstrar of Titles Bepu€y I Thomas E Hodorff do hereby cerlify the+this plat waa prepared by me or ands,my direct superWsion- that I a a duty Licensed Land S.re¢ynr n the State of MEn..sc to; that Ihl.Plot is correct representation of the boundary torvey: that o11 mothemoticol dote and labels o ectly da.ignatetl the pl¢ti Shot aIT monuments depicted a.this,plot have been,o will be correcify set within one yep,; that a'i water h...do,!,a and at lands, s def€ned In Minnesato Statutes,S..U.. 505.01,SLbd.31 as of Ure dote rof this aerti Tioon are.Roan and 111,01d on this plot; and all pubic ways ere shown and t.bcTcd COUNTY RECONDER,Hennepin Country,Minne=_ota on this plat. 9ot¢4 this_day o1 20—. 1 hereby ca Wy that the within plat of FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARTS ADDITION was..carded ha this office this __doy of . 20_,at -o clock__.M. Thomas E.Hodorff,Llcen_ed Land Swveycr ­­l Smith, Acting Oaunty Recorder By Deputy Minnesato License No. 23577 STATE OF_ COUNTY OF This tot—ant woe ockno%ladgad before me this ____day of— , 20—,by Thos E,Hodorff_ s'.gnokure notary printed name Notofy Public, -County.Minnesota My Commis.ian Explres_ HARRY S. JOHNSON LAND SURVEYORS E SHUT i OF 2 SHEETS I FRANCE AVENUE BUSINESS PARK ADDITION aT C-R. DOG. NO. i P BIO On--T ROW PLAT NO.37-125 I �ROw EOIfNUAAY CURB FA ��NOT TWI:p f POWT DS ON WOOT RUON PLAT HO.]7-1-1225_, R Fa.Nn wcei PLPE 225,70 A E f\ I F1 A I _eo i P,A,OU1�o_ar�� -RM a.T Ro.i7 1s5 —1 V L/ I -5 L J I_-/1 I I\-J I r Isawiti�'�r ccw+eR I:pw D«eI Ars I eiO x'i n ns rn�LOT 1. - l~ r F r--fir" A r ir_-p,€I IF n 11 �I L \�----- I \e I A I<'- X1-1- _ A w 1_> _ r----- L_r-rI♦L_P-1\L_L_.L_L-. l-tV L_1 NLJ L- 1N1-Y \ I {�lj�' N 9OO'Q° E 528.75 �' 3 __ T_ I ,, wr�eR�zc�oolnav-c„I• II � 82j1� I y-i.�I ! III• I �1� f ° I��� � � N - Po Nr RTC Na —1 P T ND.2)-1 V1 LO25 NOW 6IX3NpANY FgRNFR \ h ' I — I \r I /\ ^ F N I I I HOT Eourrb a I V -7 c_ l X J� / Z 2FPST'3fi' ti9.6e) __ ��yy, � <�- _ !- / /\ ���_ �` _ ✓ I o`O s I� LA _—��.__— '\�_ .+ ClJ i il� � 1 `J •al V 1 /� 5_ll I - - NYp=g 1 (1z=o 49-'3a.74 1 } 5 90'000x W PQr[r ba at uubaT S 0.92 RaNw n�xiolNreO.acorwle'i,�' •-_ pEOUNO na+PIPE Uz o zrp•si:u• nbsl C I I �- I r('-J � I �./,�.I r � � I •�\ LOT 1 1 o ,n i ° N 27.0.1'x0J"^!\E `oDETAL "g„ ;20.x'0' w r BLOCK DETAIL NOT TO SCALE I I <AZ z7p�33s•J v \\�J s 90'00'9x W_149,74 ,____- N 1.45'48" 54 �\ 7 f .1 cltAli vcc Ar+a vruL I N J0"O'0" W 2z1 ='49.00 I;=faO.Dx r�\ POVT O. 7-M / / \� N"ova ka EFEEUENT ftVM 8FLAT 1 2C ER-�+J / • •���\` rsb_TIY _ X �f rwKb MON PPE L f / C aD f Nam; \ / / 5 89 4, 1 CO t_Gs.n nlO�RT 5 ` S 1090.00 E'46'48" W f I / o"do f\L'as'asAZELIA AVEt%JtJ / - R PQT El C S 96'6'0° E 10061 A" DETAIL „A•, DETAIL NOT TO SCALE PER Doc RG. \f 6 G- V, --_.._______ ---------- !� `v / \ �\V X p DENOTES SET IRON MINIUMENT �,. C A..rn,,.r nLn-,r. 1II ev,uewcEO lay,/z°Rr,4' - L_�L•.E•:I^L .,Y= v..r_ �r�.h L n \ t r IRON PIPE I.IARIFD R.L.S.23677 ` N 90'0'0" V! 44279 DENOTES RIGHT OF ACCESS �' ``-ecWOaTMCISUAI`Lnas rx°or 1' { DEDICATE❑-.11— /� \ I es7 -r A T ` I/�I IiAI A T IL:NW DI LINE OF LOT 1.B-OCK I. N 25'4737° W 1EY.NIS Acftrs-ran.Is Ass—TO nAVe I I /-1 I L_ l l\7 V U !-1 I I V t.J I LJ LJ l A BEARING OF N O90'00 E /J I /l�� �^ \ cRUlucc ANn un,rrc sASVSNrs 1JlE s3ox!I TRUS I J X \ �ii \ \ ✓ -1.. .--- —— — J-— I P� aj 80 25 0 80 loo 150 a\\ NUT TU S�uE ! EE,uc 1S.EEEr cv uwvr.4.W�IWO LOT VIES.AID AUK MG SCALE IN FEET ,ry wcLLr wAY�+�. ,Ea o,>3�va prolarEb. HARRY S. JOHNSON LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS City Council Agenda Item No. 6f COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer s1� SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Final Plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND pp g ADDITION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider the resolution approving final plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION. Background: The Brooklyn Center City Council approved the proposed preliminary plat based upon certain conditions (see attached conditions of approval, City Council Resolution No. 2012-130). The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission reviewed and recommended the SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION final plat on October 25, 2012 (see attached resolution, Planning Commission Resolution 2012-25). The attached final plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION was developed and would combine and subdivide the following existing properties: Lots 12, 13, 16, 17 and Outlot A. The new plat will form 5 new, independent lots,with Outlot A remaining the same. The applicant is now seeking final plat approval from the City Council. The final plat is recommended for approval subject to the conditions established by the City Engineer, conditions established by the City Attorney based on a review of an updated title commitment provided by the applicant (within the past 30 days), conditions as previously approved by the City Council, and any conditions established by Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation for recording of the plat documents. Budget Issues: The applicant has paid a final plat application fee of$125 and must reimburse the City for any additional engineering, administrative, legal or other fees associated with the filing and recording of the final plat. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Mission:Ensurhrg are attractive,clealz,safe,inclusive community that enhances the rlualitV of life f<rr all people and preserves the puhlic trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended approval for the final plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION based on certain conditions as set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-25 City Council Resolution No. 2012-130; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for approval of the final plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION as required by City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota that the final plat for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions as previously required by the City Council pertaining to the development's Preliminary Plan approval in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 2012-130. 2. Conditions as previously recommended by the Planning Commission pertaining to the final plat in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-25. 3. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's final plat review memorandum dated October 19, 2012. 4. Evidence of title satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer. 5. Any other conditions as established by Hennepin County and/or the Minnesota Department of Transportation for recording of said Final Plat. 6. Prior to release by the City of the final, approved plat, the owner must reimburse the City the full amount of legal fees incurred by the City in obtaining a review or opinion of title. November 13, 2012 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. Member Dan Ryan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2012-130 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-011 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK (FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY) A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2012-011 submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat of a new subdivision to be titled SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2°d ADDITION, which is a replat of 6 lots generally located inside the new Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development project site, (Subject Site); and WHEREAS, the Planning• Commission held a duly called public hearing on September 13, 2012, whereby this item was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2°d ADDITION, which were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the preliminary plat materials submitted with Planning Application No. 2012-011, that said plat is in general conformance with City of Brooklyn Center's City Code Chapter 15-Platting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-011 as submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company requesting Preliminary Plat consideration of a new subdivision to be titled SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2°d ADDITION, be approved based upon the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and conditions as .noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated September 7, 2012 shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals. 2. Any easements that need to be vacated under this platting process as determined by the City Engineer must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor. 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City. Engineer, prior to release by the City for recording purposes. i RESOLUTION NO. 2012-130 4., The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15, of the City Ordinances, 5. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application(within 30 days of release of the final plat). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2012-011 as submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company requesting Preliminary Plat consideration of a new subdivision to be titled SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2nd ADDITION, be approved based upon the those same conditions memorialized herein. September 24, 2012 Date Mayor ATTEST: d City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lin Myszkowski and upon vote being taken thereon,the^following voted in favor thereof: Tim Willson, .Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin :Myszkowski;;=Wand Dan Ryan; and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was-declared duly passed and adopted. t i I I MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19, 2012 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor SUBJECT: Public Works—Final Plat Review for SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION i Public Works Department staff reviewed the final plat submittal dated October 8, 2012 for the proposed SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDITION and provides the following conditions: General: 1. All comments and conditions indicated in September 7, 2012,preliminary plat and the September 7, 2012, PUD review memorandums from Public Works are included by reference. 2. 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). 3. Replatting and terminating certain easements are required as part of this replatting. An easement vacation application must be submitted with the required fee. 4. The revised preliminary plat must include all of Outlot A. 5. The declaration of covenants and restrictions and the subdivision agreement must be filed with the final plat. 6. Submit two mylar copies of the final plat. 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) and final 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 plan may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. Commissioner Burfeind introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-25 RESOLUTION REGARDING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2� ADDITION LOCATED WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE AS SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK ON BEHALF OF GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2012-011 was previously submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat of a new subdivision to be titled SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2"a ADDITION, which is a replat of 6 lots generally located inside the new Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development project site, (Subject Site); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on September 13, 2012 , whereby the Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2"a ADDITION was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding the preliminary plat, and the Planning Commission subsequently adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-21, which recommended the City Council approve said Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2"a ADDITION and; WHEREAS, the City Council, at its September 24, 2012 meeting also considered Application No. 2012-011 and received the recommendation made by the Planning Commission, and in light of all testimony received and affirmed the Planning Commission's recommendation, and adopted City Resolution No. 2012-130, which approved the Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2nd ADDITION, subject to the following considerations: 1. The recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated September 7, 2012 shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals. 2. Any easements that need to be vacated under this platting process as determined by the City Engineer, must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor. 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer,prior to release by the City for recording purposes. 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 1 of 2 i 5. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application(within 30 days of release of the final plat). AND NOW WHEREAS, Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, has submitted an application for the FINAL, PLAT of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2 ADDITION, which remains the replat of 6 lots generally located inside the new Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development project site,and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2na ADDITION at the October 25,2012 study session meeting, at which time a staff memorandum and supporting documentation of said final plat was presented; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission determined during its review that said final plat to be in general conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2 nd ADDITION, that all conditions have been or will be met by the Applicant prior to release by the City of the final plat for recording purposes; and the final plat is in general conformance with City Code Chapter 15—Platting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, that the Final Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2na ADDITION, as submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, be approved,that all conditions noted under City Resolution 2012-130 remain in effect and subject to completion by the Applicant. October 25 2012 Date Chair ATTEST: 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 Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Leino, Morgan and Schonning and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 of 2 "' SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2N® ADDITION R.T. DOG. NO. i KNCV1 ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Sh'mgle Creek, LLC, o Delaware limited liability company, on r and RROCKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA propri etor of the followlRg described property siluoted in the County of Hennepin, Stvie of Minnesoto, tv wTt:ne Oeklol A and Lvts 12, 13, 16 and 17, Elr ck 1, all in SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING, This plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROS51Nv 2ND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Caunol Of L11—klyn Center, 'I Minnesoto,at regular meeting thereat held this_—— _day of___,._ _ 20—,_ If applicable, the written k F'. Goosed the same to ba; vcyed and plaited S CREEK CROSSING 2ND ADDI-BUN and does hereby dedicate tv comments and recommendotians of the Commis net of TransporfeEicn end fhe County Hi91—y Engineer have been r c— the public, for pebTlc use for.,ver, the drainage and villity eascmcnis a.shaven or1 So Td plat, by the City or the prescridad 30 day period hors�e'opsed vrilheut rsa eipt of such comments and recomrnendotions, o, i provided by M.,I. Statutes, Section 505.03. Subd. 2. i i Ir1 w€t"se whpraof aaid Shingle Creek, LLC, c Celavra:e limited Tivblily company. has Goosed these presents Lo be signed by i its groper officer this — day or_..__—_ 20—_. CITY COVNCTL Ur HROOKL YN CENTER, MINNESOTA Signed: Shingle DfeEk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By. Shingle Creek MET,Inc.. a Delaware corpnrption; I ItY M—gMg IJI—bar - 6Y: Hy:__—___._.__-- SIGNED: ____— — ___Sts Sole Regular Director Frank€in G. Guilin III TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Hennepin C—ty, Minnesota STATE OF COIJN-IY O.` — _�__,......___.__ 1 hereby certify that taxes payable €n 20___ and prior years h—heen pail for Innd described on this Plat. dated this day of The foregoing instrument w acknonledged before me this day cf 20_, by F'rcnklin C. Catlin I I I the Sale Reg ulor Di recur of ShTc gle Creak MM, Inc.,n I3elowore car potation, as Managing Member of Shinglc (:reek, L.I.C. u Delaware limited liability—rapony, on h�df of said company_ Mark V. Chopin, liennepi. Cavnty Aud tp DY:_— — — - Julie Pessolequa N Diary y County, My Commission Expires: September 24, 20€3 SURVEY DIVISION,Henn epirt Cauniy, ?Mnnesola Parsannt to i ji se`n Stefutes, Sec. 3838.565 X1969). this plot has bean approved this _ day u( I, M-k 5. Hansen, do hereby ee r tlfy that this plat w s praoored by m under my dlrect supervision; that I dm a duly ___.. 2G--- Li—c—d Land Surveyor in the Sto to of to innesota; that this plat is v ca ck rzprzsentatTo' of the boundary survey, that all mothemotital data artd 4abels are Correctly oesignoled on the plat; that roil m ants depicted on the plot have been, or will be c ectly set within a e year, that o11 water bc...I—ies and r,el lands vs uci.n d in Minnesota Statutes, 5a_Vnn 505.01, Subd. 3, es eF the dv Ee of this certiflenie.are shown and lcbcled on this plot; and olf pubTic vroys ore shown and ]abated on this prat_ Wllivm P.Dr n,Iennepin Cavnty Surveyor DY:.__ Wted 11>is ___day of______....T,— 20 . REuSTRAR OF TITLES, llenneoln Cavnty. Minnesoto lAark S F:anson. Licensed Lend 5arveyor MTnnes ota Lfcense No. 154d0 I hereby certify that the rvith3n plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSS€NG 2ND ADDITION r,as Fled in this office this day of STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Thls instrument was ocknow:edgcd before me on th€s —day of__ —___--. 20 _-, by Nark S. Hnnsan. Rachel Srnith, Acting Registrar of Titles HY: --Depu Ly Nalary Pubfie, ��� County, Minnesoto 14y Commission Expires ___ ----- ISSUN�E SH&'S7' 1 OF 2 SHEETS L R.T. D OC, NO, SHINGLE CREEK' CROSSING ZAA Ho-'L� E ^r:!- +,��U , !�/ Vf..d �l�®/ J /V/ �4imu'Gr`Fr.--� f 7' 3oE N84°.3327 E' EAg`.SENT EI.sEId Enr T•.j57%2 70PT W4:"5 g9 by oRStdRGE 41.47 - 589 43`54°E •Y+ I •,1. 387.86 -- _:-3�- •j}D�'-i F yFNT -.[Ip N4.69 2 f�,y,�lOR 9Y - _•- ,tif%• ! SEG? T!r8•R.2f_ b� r °^^ •.�-- ♦ y- `yJ r �''^ -;'� I¢[a`tRE'E EASErtiE!!)' \ - rlR0.4 MGVUNElJr(FOLNIOJ 04 N 5/°J e y �r 3d.A5-"' �=} .'?8 I s 332H25J�35553!2 7-`w ,/' 1�j? I '\'/ _..S/7°OO'03°E i `� 1 s�,rNm �--9,x83 lT1 NOI'0535£_�_--"� f[ s {'� a w10 i~--6.°I• f � �- 4.1.15 ` £ SHS).sTO�'1•� 4•$-'• f <� �.T�v Q 1 a C 7"WT pFPdfdAGE : 1 I• '•f ' •' _ ' .`', `W '.•92.S.Tr J9.W s67°/6:39'E"k UPLITY�%'' I/I ^iN EASDAEIIFi \ + Pd.NJ NOT TiSI.'LEN!•-2f �' 'Y I 'n Q`�:\ .'1 �_} - G=118.35 R=348.70 d=/9 c-7l` 1d5* 136 229 \ 3,9 7 I .+�'5T� rn 4r SW CCAPfER OF % RZAINAGE " - I p,13�'S r,�__ �$ °'-, ���s h EA-ENT T• z m IRCW ueaaslm' lUU D 100 2OD o ---- °- f . to SCALE IN FEET �j .n /' iG C� c_ v .i 1i I 1�• 1 s c _ _- N �__ :4 e , _ f Ir f :rnti w 5 GHaNac;E i`o I Iw c-rnr ri"....[ & MT ui-v_ '•.I - v!1 11`:��f+V lJ D 7ryA� _ i EASEniE1JT V • a 4l R% E v"3'5G 9C 556 aF51 EDP £5 ----------- .' I � I O DENOTES IRON V.ONWENT SET, MARKED'KITH PLS 154SO , r} J `�`N -,g65 f DENOTES IRON M FOUND MARKED WITH --- „I 2 b;•� �`'Ef 5 PLS 15480, UNI F55 ES OTHERWISE SHOWN, Yl 4p 9 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT, THE WEST rt STrr ,t¢� f5� a5 L�}DD 5}5 LINE OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP IIB, RANGE 21 ° � =�v RU IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A HEARING OF hb�o E 70.34 51ilINCLE CREEK (DITCH I NO. 13)TOP OF WATER ELEVATION — 838.8 `k.ET, AS LOCATED UN 6ENCH MARK: TOP OF TOP NUT OF FlRE HYDRANT LCCATED S98'17'34"E A DISTANCE OF 79948 FEET FROM THE N'F CORNER OF OVTLOT A. ELEVATION - 951.58 FEET (BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC VERECAL DATUM OF 1929) sa6 3f os"w /mayyJ ofmow%fJ t53po58 v�� / 3.+7715 mac♦ \ 1 / �1 4-i.,,✓� 55 /� I (SUNDE LAND SURVEYING SHEET 2 OF 2 SHE'E'TS L City Council Agenda Item No. 6g I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing the Interest Rate for 2013 Special Assessments Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution establishing the interest rate for 2013 special assessments at 6.0 percent. Background: Each year the City Council sets an interest rate for special assessments levied against properties based on the City's Special Assessment and Internal Loan Interest Rate Policy. The objective of this policy is to establish an equitable interest rate that will not unfairly burden the property owner but also recover the cost of borrowing from outside sources, recover the .cost of administering the special assessments and protect the City from the possibility that special assessment prepayments might impair the City's ability to service the bonds. City Council policy has been to establish the special assessment interest rate by calculating the sum of the interest rate for the most recent general obligation bond, adding two (2) percent to cover the overhead costs described above, and rounding to the, nearest one-half percent in accordance with the Interest Rate Policy. The most recent improvement bond sale by the City of j Brooklyn Center was Series 2008B General Obligation Improvement Bonds at 3.87 percent, resulting in a special assessment interest rate of 6.0 percent for 2013. The 2013 rate is consistent with the 2012 rate, which was also 6.0 percent Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. , Council Goals: Strategic: 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conrnumitp that enhances the qualtb,of life for till people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE INTEREST RATE FOR 2013 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council levies special assessments for certain neighborhood street and utility projects, delinquent utility bills and other services provided to property owners that go unpaid; and WHEREAS, amounts outstanding are certified to Hennepin County for collection with property taxes; and WHEREAS,by City Policy,interest is to be charged on outstanding amounts certified to Hennepin County for collection with,property taxes; and WHEREAS,the interest rate to be charged is two percent over the net interest rate for the most recent City General Obligation bond sale rounded up to the next one-half percent; and WHEREAS, the most recent General Obligation bond sale resulted in a net interest rate of 3.87 percent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota,that the interest rate charged on outstanding special assessments for the year 2013 is hereby established at 6.0 percent. November 13, 2012 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 leis. 6h COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing 2013 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates Rccommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Resolution Establishing the 2013 Street and Storm Drainage Special Assessment Rates for City street and utility improvement projects. Background: Each year the City Council establishes assessment rates for R1, R2, and R3 residential zoned properties based on the City's Special Assessment Policy. Within these zoning districts, the assessment rate for street and storm drainage improvements is based on a unit amount that applies to all single family residential properties. The unit amount represents a specific portion of the average cost for reconstructing a typical residential street and storm drainage system. Street assessments for non-residential and R4 to R7 residential properties are computed separately for each project. Special assessment rates are typically adjusted each year to reflect normal inflationary increases in construction costs. The City's Special Assessment Policy indicates that, "the unit assessment shall be adjusted annually to reflect cost of living increases as measured by the Construction Index" (see Section 11 — 2.10.2.B.1.a.2). The ENR Construction Cost Index has experienced an average annual percent change for 2012 of 3.5 percent (see Table 1). Table 1. ENR Construction Cost Index - 12-Month Average Annual Percent Change Year 2006 2007_ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* 12-mo avg. annual % change 2.4 1.5 5.3 0.3 3.6 1.3 3.5 Source: Engineering News Record website,November 6, 2012 Note: * 11 month average As a comparison, the Consumer Price Index has experienced an average annual percent change for 2012 of 1.9 percent (see Table 2). Table 2. Consumer Price Index - 12-Month Average Annual Percent Change Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* 12-mo avg. annual 2.4 2.7 3.7 -0.6 2 3.2 1.9 % change Source: US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website,November 6, 2012 Note: * 9 month average Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,sr je,inclusive coninumiti.,that enhances the qualio,of life fc)r all people and preserves the public trust I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Based on the 2012 information above, staff recommends adjusting the special assessment rates by an increase of 3.5 percent for 2013, which will be an increase of $164 from the 2012 total assessment amount. This should continue to maintain the portion of street and storm drainage costs that are assessed at approximately 40 percent of the total cost for street and storm drainage improvements. The City Council has historically targeted 40 percent as the portion of street and storm drainage improvements that are assessed to adjoining Rl, R2, and R3 residential properties. Budget Issues: Increasing the 2012 special assessment rates for 2013 would result in an assessment amount of $3,731 for street improvements and $1,120 for storm drainage improvements. The total assessment amount would be $4,851 per R1 single family residential lot in 2013 compared to $4,687 in 2012. The attached resolution provides the corresponding adjustments for R2 and R3 zoned properties based on the proposed unit assessment rate. Council Goals: Strategic: 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City Mission:Ensuring an attructive,elean,sej&,inclusive contnumitn that enhances the duality of life for all people and preserves the public trust li Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2013 STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES WHEREAS,the residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage improvements are annually reviewed and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS,the residential assessment rates should be adjusted annually to be effective January 1; and WHEREAS,the 2013 street and storm drainage assessment rates for RI,R2, and R3 zoned districts are based on a specific proportion of 40 percent of the average cost for street and storm drainage improvements; and WHEREAS,the R4,R5,R6,and R7 zoned districts will continue to be assessed based on an evaluation of project cost and project benefit. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The residential street and storm drainage special assessment rates for street reconstruction shall apply to properties in R1, R2 or R3 zoned districts. These rates shall also be applied to parcels of property in other land use zones when such parcels (a) are being used as one-family or two-family residential sites at the time the assessment roll is levied; and (b) could not be subdivided under the then-existing Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage reconstruction effective January 1, 2013, shall be as follows: Land Use 2013 Assessment Rates RI zoned, used as one-family $3731.00 per lot(street) site that cannot be subdivided $1120.00 per lot (storm drainage) Land Use 2013 Assessment Rates R2 zoned, or used as a two-family $49.7467 per front foot with a site that cannot be subdivided $3731.00 per lot minimum (street) $14.9333 per front foot with a $1120.00 per lot minimum(storm drainage) RESOLUTION NO. R3 zoned (per unit) Assessable frontage x $49.7467 (street) Number of residential units Assessable frontage x $14.9333 (storm) Number of residential units 3. The residential assessment rates for street and storm drainage reconstruction shall not apply to R4, R5, R6 or R7 zoned districts. The assessment rates for street reconstruction for R4,R5,R6 or R7 zoned property shall be based on an evaluation of the project cost and the project benefit for each project. November 13 2012 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. 9a I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-021 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval of Building J in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, which is scheduled to become the new LA Fitness Facility - 1500 Shingle Creek Crossing Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this planning application item, adopt the resolution regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-021 submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting Site and Building Plan approval of Building J in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, which is scheduled to become the New LA Fitness Facility, located at 1500 Shingle Creels Crossing. Background: On May 23, 2011 the City Council approved the original Shingle Creek Crossing PUD for the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall properties. The Council subsequently approved Amendment No. 1 on September 12, 2011, followed by Amendment No. 2 on August 13, 2012 and the latest Amendment No. 3 on September 24, 2012. On October 25, 2012 the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 2012-021 submitted by Gatlin Development Company, for Site and Building Plan approval of proposed Building J in the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, as illustrated on the attached August 2012 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan and PUD Plans. This Building J site was selected to become the new LA Fitness Facility. The attached October 25, 2012 planning report indicates Building J was identified under the original 2011 PUD plans as Building G, which was planned to be 45,000 sf, building on a 3.5 acre pad site. As part of the recent changes comprehended under Amendments No. 2 and 3, the original Bldg. G site was re-labeled to Building J, and the updated plans reflected a slightly smaller building size of 38,000 sf., along with a smaller lot size of 3.09 acres. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-23, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the Site and Building Plan Approval for Proposed Building J. Excerpts from the October 25, 2012 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Hission.Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the publie trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. 4. We will improve the city's image. II Mission:bisitfing an attractive,dean,sah,inclusive communitly that enhances the quality of Iffie for all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-021 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF BUILDING J IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BECOME THE NEW LA FITNESS FACILITY- 1500 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2012-021 was submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan for proposed Building J of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which Building J is scheduled to become the new 38,000-s£ LA Fitness facility, located at 1500 Shingle Creels Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements constructed under the Shingle Creels Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on October 25, 2012, to fully consider Planning Application No. 2012-021, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for proposed Building J and the related LA Fitness facility and other site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the Site and Building plans are consistent with the General Development Plans of the overall Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of proposed Building J, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2012-021, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Planned Unit Development approved on the Subject Site, will facilitate the ongoing redevelopment and improvement of this site,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 improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; RESOLUTION NO. 4. The Site and Building. Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5. The Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is,therefore,in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED b the Planning Advisor Commission of the City Y g Y Y of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2012-021 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Developer agrees to comply with the conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated October 19, 2012. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. The location or placement of any fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. I i RESOLUTION NO. 8. Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 9. 136-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 11. Developer shall include decorative stone veneer (ledge stone design) along the front elevations and the brick banding areas along the remaining three elevation sides. Final approval of these additional architectural elements/veneers shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 12. Developer shall provide a final lighting plan with accent lighting on all four sides of the new building. Final approval of this plan and light standards shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 13. Developer shall install and pave the access drive-aisle on the opposite side of the 90-degree parking area located west of the new building. 14. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 15. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 16. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 17. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2012-021 submitted by Loren Van Der Slik (for Gatlin Development Company) requesting approval for proposed Building J of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which Building J is scheduled to become the new 38,000-sf. LA Fitness facility, located at 1500 Shingle Creek Crossing, is hereby approved subject to the conditions memorialized herein. November 13 2012 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. i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 25, 2012 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:14 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Scott Burfeind, Stan Leino, Carlos Morgan and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development, Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Kara Kuykendall and Michael Parks were absent and excused. Stan Leino arrived at 7:14 p.m. (Mr. Leino's presence created a quorum of the Commission and allowed the meeting to begin 14-minutes after the 7:00 p.m.posted meeting time). APPROVAL OF MINUTES—OCTOBER 11 2012 There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the minutes of the October 11, 2012 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Chair Rahn abstained as he was not 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. 2012-021 LOREN VAN DER SLIK/GATLIN DEVELOPMENT Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-021, consideration of a proposed Site and Building plan approval for a new LA/Fitness facility, proposed Building J, as illustrated and planned in the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Master Development Plan (1500 Shingle Creek Crossing). (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 10-25-12 for Application No. 2012-021.) Mr. Benetti explained Building J was originally planned to be 45,000 s£ building on a 3.5 acre pad site platted as Lot 7, Block 1, Shingle Creek Crossing. He added as part of the recent amendments No. 2 and 3, Building G site was re-labeled to Building J which will be a slightly smaller building (38,000 sq. ft.) with a slightly smaller lot size of 3.09 acres. Mr. Benetti further explained the new LA Fitness building footprint is approximately 160' x 216', or 34,500 sq. ft. and the interior mezzanine level of 3,500 sq. ft. increases this building size Page 1 10-25-12 I to the 38,000 sq, ft. He added the PUD Agreement between Gatlin Development and the City allows the Developer to decrease final building sizes without the need for any PUD amendment or special approvals. Mr. Benetti stated the new site plan layout contains two minor changes including removal of a two-way drive aisle to the rear of the building to accommodate front row parking and a smaller connecting parking area to the east side of the building which is to be kept as green space and landscaped area. Mr. Benetti continued by stating the building is surrounded by 6-ft. sidewalks along the west, north and east sides, and a larger 15-ft. walkway along the front as well as connecting walkways between the two building sites to the west and east of this site. He pointed out the Planning Commission adopted a resolution that included an additional condition regarding improving pedestrian access on the site, however, this plan does not include any walkway connection to the trail/walkway along Bass Lake Road due to the existing decorative fencing along this existing trail. He added the City Council did not support the idea of allowing additional or multiple pedestrian access "cuts" in the Bass Lake Road fencing and felt the walkway connections offered by the Developer/Development was adequate and much safer. Therefore, there is no recommendation made to include any additional walkway to the Bass Lake Road segment. Mr. Benetti reviewed the exterior components of the building including the stone veneer and lighting on the buildings as well as the exterior sidewalks. He added they are suggesting that lighting be included on all four sides of the building since the walkway continues around the entire site. Mr. Benetti added that staff has also recommended that the developer install another drive aisle on the other side of the parking area. He pointed out the Phase II Land Disturbance permit has been approved on the site which accommodates Buildings H, K and L and part of the parking area and utility work is being handled under the building permit process. Therefore, staff is recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 2012-23. Chair Rahn asked if the landscaping is adequate as it relates to the city's landscape point system. Mr. Benetti responded that the overall landscaping plan was approved as part of the original PUD approval and went above and beyond what is required. He added even adjusting what is being accommodated in the back,they are still within what's required. Commissioner Leino asked if the building meets similar size and style requirements as other LA Fitness buildings. Mr. Benetti responded that typically a company will come in with prototype plan depending on what part of the county they are located in. He added this prototype contains more features that other LA Fitness facilities in the metro area and fits the city's architectural standards. Commissioner Morgan arrived at 7:25 p.m. I Commissioner Burfeind asked if the stone veneer is similar to what was used on the Wal-Mart building. Mr. Benetti explained that it will look similar to and will blend in but will not mimic exactly. He added the city requested additional materials on the building to meet standards established with the Wal-Mart building. Mr. Burfeind stated he likes the proposed look of the building. I Page 2 10-25-12 it I The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. i ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-021 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK OF GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF BUILDING J IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BECOME THE NEW LA FITNESS FACILITY LOCATED AT 1500 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-23. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Leino, Morgan, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its November 13, 2012 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. Page 3 10-25-12 Commissioner Leino introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-021 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK OF GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF BUILDING J IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SCHEDULED TO BECOME THE NEW LA FITNESS FACILITY, LOCATED AT 1500 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2012-021 submitted by Loren Van Der Slik, on behalf of Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan for proposed Building J of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which Building J is scheduled to become the new 38,000-sf. LA Fitness facility, located at 1500 Shingle Creek Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements constructed under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on October 25, 2012, to fully consider Planning Application No. 2012-021, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for proposed Building J and the related LA Fitness facility and other site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans are consistent with the General Development Plans of the overall Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of proposed Building J, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2012-021, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development proposed on the Subject Site, will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, 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 improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the II PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-23 planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; 4. The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5. The Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is,therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooldyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2012-021 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Developer agrees to comply with the conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated October 19, 2012. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. The location or placement of any fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 5. Final grading, drainage,utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 2 of 4 PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-23 8. Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 9. B6-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 11. Developer shall include decorative stone veneer(ledge stone design) along the front elevations and the brick banding areas along the remaining three elevation sides. Final approval of these additional architectural elements/veneers shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 12. Developer shall provide a final lighting plan with accent lighting on all four sides of the new building. Final approval of this plan and light standards shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 13. Developer shall pave the access drive-aisle on the opposite side of the 90- degree parking area located west of the new building. 14. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 15. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 16. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 17. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. 3 of 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 r �r October 25,2012 Date Chair C ATTEST: \` `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 Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Leino, Morgan and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 of 4 I Cilwd BROOBL}A' CEeVTER Application Filed on 10/02/2012 City Council action should be Planning Commission Report taken by 12/01/12 (60 Days) Meeting Date: October 25,2012 Application No. 2012-021 Applicant: Loren Van Der Slik- Gatlin Development Company Location: 1500 Shingle Creek Crossing Request: Site &Builddng Plan—Building J(LA Fitness) INTRODUCTION Gatlin Development Company is requesting review and consideration of a Site and Building Plan approval of a new 38,000 (GFA) LA Fitness facility, located at 1500 Shingle Creek Crossing. This site plan is being considered as part of the Building J pad site, which was previously approved and illustrated under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD). This site plan does not require a public hearing, but can be considered under a standard public meeting review, whereby comments from the general public may be allowed or noted for the record. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2011 the City Council approved the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD for the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall properties. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD included an overall Master [Development] Plan, which guides the future development planned for this site, and included a number of approved variations from the zoning ordinance. This master plan included the development of a 182,000 sf. Wal-Mart retail store, the remodeling of the old Brookdale Mall food court building, and fifteen new building pad sites for retail and service uses, three of which were identified as restaurant sites. Construction of the new Wal- Mart store is complete and other site/utility improvements are nearing completion. The City recently approved site and building plans for Buildings G, H, K, and L and work on those sites are either underway or anticipated to begin early next spring 2013. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD site was originally zoned as PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) district. This zoning remains in place and is not subject to any changes or modifications at this time. As part of the PUD Agreement, any new building within this PUD must be reviewed under separate site and building plan review. •:° SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Building J was originally identified under the 2011 SCC-PUD plans as Building G, which was planned to be 45,000 sf. building on a 3.5 acre pad site (as illustrated on the diagram below — lower left). This pad site was platted as Lot 7, Block 1, Shingle Creek Crossing. As part of the recent amendments No. 2 and 3 approved by the City Council, this original Bldg. G site was re- labeled to Building J. The new Bldg. J (lower right) is shown to be a slightly smaller building of App.No.2012-021 Page 1 of 10 PC 10/25/12 38,000 sf. (GFA), with a slightly smaller lot size of 3.09 acres. This lot and a number of the surrounding lots, are scheduled to undergo a replat in the future, but is not being considered as part of this site and building plan application. - O ---�-- --- '<'.-PROPO _y_?--��"'-`— f — - — ;/� /FJI- - _ (PYLON SIGN�t PROPOSED MONUMENT F/ r SIGN (" l _C I ..A.' 4s.wosf .mil r J l I tti'11 na`a„sw ,y. a'. a � - 8,400 f y CY" 40 ORIGINAL PUD PLAN AMENDED PUD (SEPTEMBER 2011) (SEPTEMBER 2012) The new LA Fitness building footprint is approximately 160' x 216', or 34,500-sf The interior mezzanine level of 3,500-sf increases this building size to the indicated 38,000-sf. GFA. The PUD Agreement between Gatlin Development and the City allows the Developer to decrease final building sizes without the need for any PUD amendment or special approvals, but is not allowed to increase building sizes, except in certain cases where a 5% increase is allowed under City Zoning Code Section 35-355. Subdiv. 5.d. The new site plan layout for this new LA Fitness facility matches fairly closely with the approved PUD planned layout, except for two minor changes. The amended Sept. 2012 Plan noted above illustrates not only a smaller building, but a two-way drive aisle to the rear of the building, along with a smaller connecting parking area to the east side of the building. The site plan under consideration (below diagram) illustrates the removal of this drive aisle, which is to be kept as green space and landscaped area. Removal of this rear driveway was due to the re-positioning of the new building away from the front access drive, which also accommodates the front row of parking spaces. App.No.2012-021 Page 2 of 10 PC 10/25/12 ._L._-.i- L_L L ! J z _I_ /A LNO ' j 1 �L, / // __,• /`k / E.• _ •I:l..wu,wauw«.,n�...no f,.1j �r �/ • .// / — �� ..�_ws.o...._�.m+,...: ?SAN g........:...,.: TM_ The building is surrounded by 6-ft. sidewalks along the west, north and east sides, and a larger 15-ft. walkway along the front, which includes a large, decorative (enhanced paving) front-door entryway. Connecting walkways are planned between the two building sites to the west and east of this site. At the previous PUD Amendment No. 3 review,the Planning Commission adopted a resolution that included an additional condition: 8. Improve pedestrian access from Bass Lake Road(County Road 10) to be reviewed as part of the final site plan process. This site plan does not include any walkway connection to the north leading or connecting up to the trail/walkway along Bass Lake Road, due in part to the existing decorative fencing along this existing trail. Although the City Council adopted this same condition into their separate resolution of approval (Res. No. 2012-129), the Council did not however, support the idea of allowing additional or multiple pedestrian access "cuts" in the Bass Lake Road fencing, which could encourage "jay-walking" or other unsafe pedestrian movements. The Council felt the walkway connections offered by the Developer/Development at the main roadway access points, ring-roads, and similar connections between building sites was adequate and much safer. Therefore, there is no recommendation made to include any additional walkway to the Bass Lake Road segment at this time. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved with an overall architectural [elevation] plan as part of the original approvals. All new buildings plan to incorporate 4-sided architecture in their designs, meaning all four elevations must provide a nice, consistent use of material on all four App.No.2012-021 Page 3 of 10 PC 10/25/12 sides of the buildings, including rear elevations. As noted on the enclosed architectural plans, ' this Building J is slated to receive a mix of brick, EIFS, pre-cast concrete panels, metal coping, spandrel glass and glass block windows, and other materials. Most of these architectural materials are consistent with the previously approved Architectural Standards (including materials) the City called for under the original PUD Agreement. Side Elevation(East Elevation) 7 3 60'high inlemaTy iCumiwted k0ers Brick'11th accent bands .. __ EFIS comics u iu 1 - Front Elevation(South Elevation) Color Legend O�EFTS In Precast panel- / Brick-Auenl EFIS Cornice- /(�/C�'�\`) Storefront Entry Odors-Gear Cobrto match 2�❑Match-'Buff Neepolem`�®cours�ngal roNnda O❑Martch Dryvd `✓❑anodized finished aluminum at SW 7689'Rwr and Ontels-Geln cobr 112 ✓ snefiml,panels and entry doors v:! House Tan' Gery Brick-Color 'Smdl°•.rood dualgWedgreen Urdglasspercode AWumn Haza Beige^ Clas_k 8 Bmnze O❑ Pre-Finished Brick-Field brick at �\ Brick-Field 1.telel'En Crovm& Light Fature-Dad,oil-rubbend Metal Coping ( / I�arcades,accent at t tl ) brick al rotmda 9O❑ldelalCarwPY- 10 bronze-Km Lighting future Slate Gray \\\J// roWnda-Glen-Gery bride �J Glen-Gery Match ICI Paints- WFS74 -Color Aulumn Hazy 6=. Gobr. #2010-Bnardield Class. Bronze(W772) 60°high internally illuminated letters Brick with accent bands Pre-cast panel EFIS finish A --- - — -- Side Elevation(West Elevation) 60'high inlemaliy illuminated letters Sports graphic panel;image to be determined. internally illuminated graphic box. Brick with accent bands Glass block Pre-cistpanel EFIS cornice EFIS finish - J Rear Elevation(North Elevation) App.No.2012-021 Page 4 of 10 PC 10/25/12 The LA Fitness building design is typical of other LA Fitnesses throughout the Twin Cities. The front elevation of the building includes a nice mix of these approved materials, including the "crown" like sun-light feature over the front entryway. The materials and look on the remaining three sides are fairly plain and absent of any unique features, except for the rear elevation with the incorporation of the two graphic designs. City staff is very much aware of the stone veneer features used in the new LA Fitness facility in the nearby city of New Brighton. This facility is shown with more ledge-stone bands and fields, as opposed to the red-brick fields submitted under this application. LA Fitness—New Brighton The architectural renderings submitted as part of the original PUD approval on this site, included plans for all new buildings to have incorporated into their facades a"stone veneer" as part of the architectural look. 42'-0" 60'-0' 42'-D" CANVAS AWNING 1 ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE FROSTED BACI C _ I BRICK VENEER LIT GLASS-' "` PREFIN.ME AL DECORATIVE Y CANOPY - - LIGHT _ � I -ANOD.ALUM. CMU -STONE VENEER STOREFRONT-- Shingle Creek Crossing PUD—Approved Architectural Elevation (Typical) To remain consistent with these standards, City staff is recommending this new LA Fitness building have similar front fayade of stone veneer as demonstrated or approved under the New Brighton facility. The stone veneer should also be incorporated into the "brick with accent bands" along the remaining three sides. An interior floor plan has also been submitted with this report, which illustrates the new facility to have a new indoor 25-yd. lap pool; basketball court; large open air workout area; free weight room area; aerobics room; spinning class room; juice bar, children's' play area; and an upstairs 3,500 sf. mezzanine level, which is absent of any details of uses or activities on this level. I App.No.2012-021 Page 5 of 10 PC 10/25/12 ACCESS & PARKING The new Site and Building Plan for Building J is noted in the following diagram. Plans call for 237 parking spaces on this specific development lot, which calculates to a 6.24 parking ratio. The original pad layout was designed to accommodate 204 spaces with a 4.53 parking ratio. Access into these parking areas is made from the main east/west access road serving this overall development site, and along the crescent-shaped ring-road that fronts along the new building and adjacent building sites. Vehicles entering and leaving this site from the main road will have limited access points due to the one-way parking layout (angled) in the larger, front parking area. The two side parking lots are striped with 90-degree parking stalls with two-way traffic to serve these areas. The new site layout includes 13 parking spaces along the front (main) entry of the building. ADA typically requires handicap/disabled parking to be as close to the front door entry as possible, which is why the Developer added these in this area. Staff is recommending the Developer install the full width parking drive aisle on the other side of the dual 90-degree parking area located on the west side of the building (this area is noted or highlighted with the red-cloud outline feature on the following diagram). Even though this drive- aisle is on the adjacent lot, the site plan indicates this parking area is to be completed as part of this approved site plan, and it makes more sense to install the drive now and allow clients full access and utilization of this parking area. Sa GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES As part of the continuing overall development and improvements to be installed under this PUD, and in conjunction with improvements to be made on individual site and building pad sites, the Developer has also submitted for city staff review a separate Phase II Land Disturbance Permit plan. This plan includes grading, drainage, utilities, and miscellaneous improvements, such as App.No.2012-021 Page 6 of 10 PC 10/25/12 curb and gutter, parking pavement, lighting and landscaping. Phase II only includes those areas in and around those sites identified as Building Sites 1-1, K, L and G. As part of this Phase II work around adjacent building sites H and K, the plan calls for the installation of the front parking areas on the LA Fitness site (shown in diagram below). The LA Fitness building pad and side parking lot areas will be completed later under future building permits. 4 5 G 7 2 T ' to q^SS r .. ti L,F T"E 5 w%,ucr n uir / \\ LV.TPCE VEayi[.T•J / (J Y Y, E F4rc.¢.SEE HEFT cnt { v G —iJ V 6041 UNE This Phase 11 plan has been reviewed and approved separately by the Shingle Creels Watershed Commission, and a city perinit has been approved with construction work currently underway. The finished grades, drainage grades to serve this LA Fitness site and adjacent building sites are intended to be consistent with each other and work together to maintain positive drainage in and around these sites. All required utilities, such as sewer, water, gas and electrical will be installed or extended to adequately serve this building site and the adjacent sites as well. This site and all other sites have been or will be reviewed by the City Engineer for full compliance and acceptance. ❖ LANDSCAPING The Applicant has submitted a landscape plan which appears to be consistent with the approved PUD Master Plan. Plans call for the installation of various deciduous trees (oaks, maples, hackbeiy, elms or honey locust) around the parking islands of this building site. All trees and landscaped areas will be irrigated. i App.No.2012-021 Page 7 of 10 PC 10/25/12 I I; •:• LIGHTING/TRASH The photometric plan indicates the parking areas (including the on-site and off-site/shared parking areas) for this new LA Fitness site includes two, 39-ft. high three-headed light standards; three 39-ft. high double-headed light standards; and one 39-ft. high single-headed light. All light is shown to be directed inward toward the building site, with limited to minimal spill-over across property lines. The architectural plan indicates eight wall pack lights along the front fagade only. The plans indicate these to be a Kim Lighting model no. WFS74, which are basically a "wall form square"mounted fixture with radial dispersed lighting. ,1;i all Forms® - Square"-.- a R OPTICAL SYSTEM Reflector LIGHT SOURCES PA1H Pulse Start Metal Halide HP-1 High Pressure Sodium PL Compact Fluorescent DISTRIBUTIONS WFS51171 WFS52172 WFS53173 FFS54174 WFS55175 Reviewing the New Brighton elevation plan again (above diagrams), you will notice the nicer, architectural, downcast style lighting, which again is more reflective of the architectural standards approved under the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. The City would prefer to see similar style of lighting on not only the front elevations, but all four elevations, due to the added lighting needs for the pedestrian walkways around the perimeter of the building. 1 App.No.2012-021 Page 8 of 10 PC 10/25/12 The plans illustrate one outdoor trash enclosure, with two, front-end loading dumpster type receptacles. As has been noted in previous site plan reviews in the development site,the original SCC Master Plan did not illustrate or indicate the placement of any trash enclosure areas within this PUD site. The plans did not provide a"typical trash enclosure" detail; however, as the City did in the previous approvals of Bldgs. H, K. L, and G, these similar style structures shall be approved contingent upon they be constructed with pre-colored rock faced block materials similar to the main buildings, with composite wood gates. These enclosures will be required to be well maintained and gates closed at all times (except during unloading times). CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The City Engineer has provided his review and comments regarding this application in the October 19, 2012 memorandum to city planning staff, attached hereto. Most of these comments and conditions reflect the improvements approved under the PUD Plan amendment. Some of these conditions may be applicable at time of future building permit review and approvals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2012-23, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2012-021, a.Site and Building Plan for proposed Building J, also identified as the new LA Fitness site plan, which is part of the approved Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and made subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated October 19, 2012. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. I� 3. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. The location or placement of any fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. i 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. I App.No.2012-021 Page 9 of 10 PC 10/25/12 i i, 8. Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 9. B6-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 10. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 11. Developer shall include decorative stone veneer (ledge stone design) along the front elevations and the brick banding areas along the remaining three elevation sides. Final approval of these additional architectural elements/veneers shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 12. Developer shall replace the wall form square style lighting with decorative architectural style lighting on all four sides of the new building. Final approval of these additional lights shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 13. Developer shall pave the access drive-aisle on the opposite side of the 90-degree, parking area located west of the new building. 14. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 15. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 16. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 17. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creels Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. Attachments • Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-23 • City Engineer's Review Memo—dated 10/19/2012 • LA Fitness Architectural and Interior Plans • Site Plans for LA Fitness/Building J(10/02/12) • Phase 11 Plan Sheet(Site Plan) App.No.2012-021 Page 10 of 10 PC 10/25/12 i i MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 2012 TO: Tim Benetti,Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor SUBJECT: Shingle Creek Crossing—LA Fitness Preliminary Site Plan Review Public Works Department staff reviewed the Preliminary Site Plan documents dated October 2, 2012, and provides the following recommendations, comments and conditions: 1. The following comments are contingent upon final building and land alteration permit approval and issuance. 2. 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 plans. 3. 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 building 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. 4. Inspection for the site improvements must be performed by the design/project engineer, as required by the City Engineer.Upon project completion and in connection with the certified as-builts,the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built under the design/project engineer's immediate and direct supervision and is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications.The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings. 5. A development agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 6. No portion of the building or appurtenant structures may encroach on the City drainage and utility easement. 7. Provide vehicle turning movement exhibits for the typical planned paths of the planned garbage and delivery trucks. 8. All new curb and gutter and parking lot islands must be concrete 136-12 curb and gutter, unless specifically approved otherwise in writing by the City Engineer. 9. Provide dimensions for turn-around located near the northeast corner of the building. 10. The trash enclosure must be better separated and protected from traffic and parking spaces (e.g. curb and gutter). 11. The drive aisle located on the adjacent lot to the west must be constructed as part of this project or completed prior to issuance of building Certificate of Occupancy. Shingle Creek Crossing—LA Fitness site plan review Page 2 of 2 October 18, 2012 12. The following item(s) are required Preliminary Plan items that have not been provided and/or included with the application and drawings as required and likewise have not been evaluated as required: a. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 13. Annotate proposed sewer pipe details on the plans (e.g. SDR 26, etc.) 14. Dimension and provide 4-ft minimum clearance between two water services to building. 15. Annotate proposed clearances between all watermain and storm/sanitary sewer crossings. 16. The civil plans must be signed and certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota. Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration and Buildina Permits: 17. Submit a recorded copy of the development agreement. 18. Submit final site plans and specifications for review and approval by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 19. Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow for the land disturbance portion of the project in the amount of 125%of the estimated cost or in the amount determined by City staff to comply with the land alteration permit, site improvements and to restore the site.The developer may submit one itemized letter of credit, if approved by City staff. The City will not release or reduce the letter of credit or cash escrow until work has been completed according to.the final site plans approved by the City. 20. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions,traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions,tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions,temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions. The plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance. 21. Submit a$2,500 separate cash escrow for the construction management plan elements as part of the non-compliance provision.This escrow must be accompanied by the agreement and signed by the developer and property owner. Through this document,the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a. The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. 22. If compliance is not achieved,the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The building plan must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the phase.2 site plans and Land Alteration/Building permit may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. 0 z Zo _j -7fF V) ce ro L/) LU = j -,o I'm 0 cn te u ai LU Cc$© =N__ uj Z aj E Lu 0 _j 0 Tat C) :i7 Ln PE yj MA� P 0 1 29 X44 �AM�[33Lf`J�1.9_N�HS:�:dU y `,o� ��. � '���a. _' ��' 13J tn IC 1A LA Ln 0 aj C: t LL OW 0; 3AIH(],)kVAAH or 61 M, A trill" X1 fit, r a--- All ovffi� "No �:t IT 1 1-Jt' � M � • � r 1�� ` , , '• , 40 + r I ', tR t •°dal t� �� r.. ��� ,✓w � � �y!! �„ ; ''; �� r '' r :f 1 gyp. o,'• rr` ':4 ! I� - �Ui�' sk X oj pp �r -V 4f 1r r, i 60°high Internally illuminated letters(231 SF Brick niN accent bands Precast panel wt architectural finish I . .III II .I�,II Side Elevation(West Elevation) 60'high Inlemally Illuminaled letters(231 SF Sports graphic panel;Image to be determined. Brick Milt accent bands Inlemally Illuminated graphic box. Glass block Precast panel w/arcNtectuml finish — I� Rear Elevation North Elevation Brick with accent bands Bite Veneer(ledge stone),typical base dela0 at all brick arcades 60'high internally illuminatetl letters(231 SF) Pre-cast panel w/architectural finish -T-- Y Side Elevation(East Elevation) t, 60'high Ii !n lellers(231 SF) Brick with accent bands II 71: FrontPre-cast panel wl architectural finish Front Elevation(South Elevation) f Stone Veneer(ledge stone),typical base detail at ail brick arcades Color Legend O Precast panelw/O Precast panel w/ O®—,i I Accent O EFTS Cornice O Storefront aluminum at ❑architectural finish 2 architectural finish 3 u sln9 al rotunda 4 ❑Match 12 5 ❑anodized finished aluminum at -Cob,to match Color to match andrlinlels-Geln color 112 slore(ronl,panels and entry doors w/ SW 7669 'Buff Naopoleon' Gary Back-Color: 'Sandlewood dual glazed green Bnt glass per code 'Row House Tan' Autumn Haze Beige' Classic 8 Bronze Pre-Finished Brlck-Field brick at Brick-Fleld 1.1etal Entry Crown 8 Llght Fixture-Dark oil-mbbend O Metal Coping- 7O'.�arcades,accent at O brick strotunda O Metal Canopy- 10 bronze-Kim Lighting lure Slate Gray rotunda-Glen-Gery Bdck -G!e,Gery Match ICI Paints- WFS74 -Cobr:Autumn Haza Brick-Calor. 92010-Sil—feld Classic Bronze(W772) 11 M Stone Veneer(ledge alone),typical base detail at all brick arcades INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY.DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OF RECORD Ground Floor - 34,500 S.F. IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS. Mezzanine - 3,500 S.F. TOTAL - 38,000 S.F. dLp0G��41[�.1C �� Concept Elevations - Brooklyn Center, MN 10.23.12 ----------Ne We -h-113-�n 0 LO --.I w3h—I WWI., MEZZANINE 3500 SIP Ne —W-H°A L kasam�area kL N ILJI Iul Mezzanine Level 215•-721" NOTE STORM STORM STORM SIDEWALK DRAIN FOG DRAIN POC DRAIN POC STORM STORM DRAIN P(C DF AIN POC ELECTRICAL FREE POC WEIGHTS TELE 7HON POC FIRE PROTECTION WATER POC ---------- ------ DOMESTIC 0 WATER POC ELI LAj N EIRM gE w0SPINNING_ STORM 230SF I CIRCUIT DRAIN POC MIRROR GAS POCI SANITARY O, 10TAI:r --�,IDEWAIX SIDEWALK PT, KID'S US ""a L F STORM 1 ------ DRAIN POC STORM IS To 6, 6, DRAIN POC .�N M IL � 0&,1'\� VAN STORM EHINAHCED PAVING STORM DRAIN POC DRAIN POC SIDEWALK Floor Plan Hatched Symbol at Pool and Shower Arco Foor Plan Hatched Symbol NOTE.,Floor to floor height Graded pad area by LL depressed Graded pad area by LL depressed shall be 13.-U.,and floor to 1.5" below typical pad height for ® 2.5" below typical pad height for ceiling shall be 19-9'at LAF's depressed concrete slab in LAF's depressed concrete slab in mezzanine where"stair areas containing tile or pool/pool areas containing wood 'flooring. stepping"equipment is to be equipment room used on the mezzanine level Ground Floor Level Ground Floor - 34,500 S.F. INFORMATION PROVIDED FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY.DESIGN PROFESSIONAL OF RECORD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS.WALL TYPES ILLUSTRATED ARE Mezzanine 3,500 S.F. FOR PRELIMINARY SPACE PLANNING ONLY;THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR Cu— CONFORMANCE AND FLOOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT PER LAPS PROGRAM NG CRITERIA TOTAL 38,000 S.F. tLaI[FOUNIEZO Concept Floor Plan - Brooklyn Center, MN Reference Plan:modified from 38K prototype,Panola GA 09.19.12 i OIavAS n°ne:K\T'6C10EV\CAIUN OEKLTPNENi\BROCK031E CENTER\CADO\Rwva 2\U i11HESS\P SHEETS\6010 COWER 9 T.E=g KID COYER 91EET Oct 03,2011 2:10pm nY pswt<oapa everna wpt•eu ua°+asu ve n v wnn.q nrw n u bmnl d,r+n b Hlne,e r.Y I°av nn'<pawn ne C.wl iv+tm n na w°°.a Rnn q W Nwr n'u=ants e=ven.quest rnln anu"a.tn w aesla. T T eq Iie=.CO r,nm ee ra=n 4w T F-+q- d 4rebba c�4T Mao s fa n rv"m ' —:5mi o Y Y 4.^Y8^➢ P=�S�m ^'m Man xx�g��ma 'AN ��ga"� �o^az Ege �og9m °x,?=� -`. -xz�'ey Fa;ia9� �" o �L4gR n�fig^R °9fi€`R �agb} ££ e ��o esa�^ Him i;°y Yore§ °nz e�=' \ x�" i-9,; $ ga Vin^-^ 's° s's m & = a`�"o s @�vszQFraFPFS' g=€eFasa -aggoR�g ao�£.ul a^��a � -°��_@� £ E' ^ -^'"a`sF=gR2°_ EDa>2 FC�f R"o°=>Z°=�3`��.°�.yso> -�:� ;�os3o "eo9o� 17•I ££ F =Rg ° nz ol� C� aR =x a g _ ,R°a€= °o p DER £6:?9u.3F EE £°R$ C Via my a Fo =i3 a= £ °s 'v>?.=' �9 gs s zR as "gu y R PH [o�liy�N ag� �S8 REf€ € � C m R o i w o H$A =a8=gFoao _e � o � o=co�> F A9`=�o m°m�Ay 9��aw �jn zip, 1 �° z e ga eg '�� m s a r xVo�m ��3oz Sao A =ooa� ge3a O F E, Al Sga Sg¢ SPUN" o°=°�gql, :R°:F;ug4 � n >yD " > =T� N&^A�D =>;°na'_'' > S°g°n q`s 4°= R°n ,4 " APR's>°� ..� i=o n tom �3HDiU ego °'zt.^° g9o_ i•o o�.n5£ e� �R�F e'oP - �.�i,=. &_FS �£ "F>=9ea8 $ P� ¢^"�_?'€ Ys��a; ¢8e -n-am. v a a x eo 1p, �e e =°c.£=,- 3�� .ao q�- [ac tl^ z° m2 gNNm ^A EE ^a R'F $ RR FFnn o n y X //� a $4ES° Y -i i0 m V/1 rn € m//�� 7 m J q� 61W. PS V/ 4� 3E AtYrEn p i> 0 �� D 'A N. a m pD,a! w i°v r°a w m O C UU rn S \R�'EWNG Em2 _a '_I O m DREW —a 0t co oo_.a m .SP`OR v� t.0 ftTt' DR. DREW(1 j N N N Z r C M ^ ` T NCRQO' r BtYO. S pHE A W IV m ` I ^ N -i ^ z Y ® z OO ZEN O O O O�CC l/ O r, ey1 G %ERXES W N UI N G \m O �•'�/! r N\ A ry a ER NWO?Z z � D 1 � 1 cf) cD WASH N N N N= --) —I TOf 71 ••TT'J'' �T• VINO .� m D ~ ( p ��� y hin le C ,,,,Z O m � RussEU prc. c � o > N N 6 C)/'J� 1 E EE A`�" N cmiep 1 9 5 8>OO 0 Z O _I C.71 CD M m O r m N. ourR �q�e m °✓`�EaS P 'ao N W N N—CC' � z s^ a AYE ti.NEWiOt! N,v j G O cn o��fii D N. MORGAN AVE,z N. u(=1 co Op Op pp D c/� s�y9� ty m S O �.// \�] m N > z ti ^ ["1 0000 O O O O VVVV V/ — " CD 0 0�c 0 A o m°< I Mga A 7 v 4T� m S A S D m Z.6 Z O 0 0 D Z > m m i 5 z i i _ SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING ^��a° ° : °* ®®®VAUbm e� BROOKLYN CENTER o COVER SHEET R""°.T." a6'° ET�K . o m LA FITNESS owinT m'" µnxuAH orvTZEK P.E.n , +- HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA 6TnO"oA to/O2/3OI2 asTfiO OATS REn3WIS BT O,a.:,0 nvna:It\iHC1OEV�0Allltl DEfELCPNJIi\80.00.1ONE @IiEA\[Ppp\P^�=.2\LA IlR,E55\PU11 9fcc15\6050 91E P—d, 6040 SM PLA4 Od 24.2012 -1P 6Y--g- ------------r �\ \ ------ -----i 1 � I a r I ! ( �/� ! i Drarng nano K:\TMC1➢Ey\DAIUN DE\ELOFNENT\DftODNALF CENTER\CA00\Vti°sf 2"FlR:E55\PWy SHEETS\6060(RAWiL AND DRMNAGE PVd1.Cay 6050 CRAILHC_ARA'NALE R/N Ocl 03,2012 2-- 6Y-1 tr ra n eu wwva w<x e<o-a fepw<ran m ut exw.nt rmwt rntw a.ar4ax^w aa¢�,w.e,r+Y,Txuv wa I,ot+n n'.rm av wyv`n�,v�t¢.wail 4 assvTxx}v�a�,`+�m�ttva ue Ale \`Nw. CA 14, \ iA',S ;n rn \ fill �. I AS v' \ \0 all \ r �r \\ 111 �� \� \ � \ �i , 1 i 1 it li,• / \{� V \ So� rill I#I 6✓� i � .. I I i iIf 1 zing I",rD- O I Pill l O nF°>m -Dti� e6= � �ss �Rlj t, a s s n r•, a ' s ¢s m _ sB ummEmDH aa�ES$o RRe a =°p oR°y F R eO z6'D- M—HA'I H09 fmN rz e°8 ,'Os s °NAB 4 qPy g 8 S m9 .. •4g'9g �' o s s a o 7 % kk1'R Y% FAR a 7 &,°Y a °-u D E Q Y - k °° N z i-A Em-%=% yg"4 x4 c,l oo®►.e Ali ® � /JL _ J� V - x - - --- � 1 �II II I ➢ •� � II eeeeeeee erg eweee— � § � I€°gggg ggxx�yy n � A ~ SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING xs ea 6D « ®®® keotrc c' GRADING AND ME T o� BROOKLYN CENTER C)m LA FITNESS DRAINAGE PLAN «� U>y D..— P_E —a n HEIINEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA Or POU v E to/Di/lalz x a5z90 nEN3a•5 DATE eT MlTM\—D\—,2\LA—ESS\——TS\-0 UnUW--g 5050 uTNTr RM Od 02.2012 2zs9pm by.En--, LjLm X A A -It 5"1 y O I � II _ cr\ `xA \ \ / i��l l 46 r I \ \ se \ / I �° I �I _,A AA � ', \ \/ /� \ \�\ / III. ilil I e __ _°� a';a" >a II � I8�•i=� •a eyo:e ,� : ill Q@ p 1 �VM 40 gyp$ Er A ff > 4 NE, mA > 4IMPR, 11,2� AN", �'g x �N 0 zi4 14 �MniR z M m 2 "t 40,1,52 2t a m M 'M o A Pmo-z K R -1 11 7;1�- ,Xlkl;M SHINGLE CREE C OSSING 7L cl EN jC, 41T— •TAI > BROOKLYN CENTER UTILITY PLAN —T, cy) z�- cD LA FITNESS D. ENNFPiN COUNTY VWIESOTA ID/02/2012 uu 45790 K'a—T\.— ...2\U—ESS\ft 9 ETS\—ROME—P d.q 6060—TWE—PIAR Oct OZ 2012 2:24p by '� .gill A. X, X- % Ell, t v.So, sn'T - o -a-, m R. n 7 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING LIM BROOKLYN CENTER PHOTOMETRICS PLAN co m c:) LA FITNESS oTA HFj4NEPIN COtjN� ­9.=e:X:\M V\GAWN —\CA00Vh­2\IA f.,ISI\P P 4.9 sm LANDSCAPE F—I Oct 02,2012 1-25P b) � 1 111 Iii 1 .f✓. 0 O II I �i I C) 7 C)En ze >? 5`! o i3 S 1-2 > lo�§ 5ggpvp XeRa i. N I; jv R—q 3 -A A �i Eg, iffi 1,15.11g Am'.2 rg E Tr M yo Ell F.""2 jrR � p - S o M� I AIN d Val; �T T SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING A—— XU --T I BROOKLYN CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN —T (D L A FITNESS HEMNITIN COUNTY MINNESOTA 1010212012.M —m Nn HENSIXIS GATE 8T d d � � A 4 JAL +� Jl F • r , I,i - City Council Agenda Item No. 1Oa COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 3300 67th Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License and Mitigation Plan for 3300 67th Ave N. If the Council chooses not to issue the license, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for denial of the rental license for the next Council meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. The previous license was a Type III one- year license. This property qualifies for a Type IV provisional rental license based on 12 property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection and zero validated police incidents/nuisance calls for the past twelve months. Staff from Administration, Building & Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan,which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 08-01-2012 The Owner, Sergey Kunin, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 330067 th Avenue N, a single family dwelling. 08-06-2012 An initial rental inspection was conducted. Twelve property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 08-20-2101 A follow up inspection was rescheduled to allow time for materials to be delivered and installed by the contractor. 09-18-2012 A second rental inspection passed. 09-18-2012 City records indicate zero validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the past twelve months. 10-03-2012 A letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 10-11-2012 A second letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 10-19-2012 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 10-24-2012 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 11-02-2012 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held November 13, 2012 Prior Type III Rental License approval activities: 08-17-2011 Sergey Kunin applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 3300 67th Avenue N, a single family residential property. 08-25-2011 An initial rental inspection was conducted(six property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria). 09-02-2011 A follow up rental inspection was conducted and failed. 09-09-2011 A follow up rental inspection was conducted and failed 09-26-2011 The inspector spoke with the owner on the phone regarding the requirements for all items to be completed. 09-27-2011 A follow up rental inspection was conducted and failed. 10-03-2011 A$100 reinspection fee assessed to the property. 11-01-2011 The reinspection fees were paid and the rental inspection was passed. 11-01-2011 City records indicate one validated police incident/nuisance call occurred in the past twelve months (burglary on 9-28-2011). 11-14-2011 A Type III—one year rental license was approved by the City Council with an expiration date of 11-30-2012. 11-15-2011 A letter was sent to the owner notifying of qualification for Type III One year Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license (submit action plan, completion of Phases I, and 1I of Crime Free Housing Program, etc.) 12-20-2011 An Action Plan was received. 12-28-2011 An Action Plan was approved. 11-06-2012 The property owner met all the requirements for the Type III license. If approved, after six months, a new rental license will be required. The license process will begin in approximately fourth months. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. i Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. i 1. Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clear:,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 2. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. 3. Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time flame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4. Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence,the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan,the Council will consider, among other things,the facility,its management practices,the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license,the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month,the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Rental License Category Criteria Policy —Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1. Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2. Fees. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3. Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4. License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may,upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100%of the units are not inspected,the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units,to include a minimum of 12 units,will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and presems the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 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 3+units 040.75 Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+units at Greer than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+units Greater than 3 b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members"as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.0 1, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of"Domestic Abuse"as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-0:25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but ibtmore than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units -Greater- 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: - We will ensure a safe and secure community - We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Attachment -Mitigation Plan i i i i Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive connrurnity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust ill i y City of Brooklyn Center Phone:763-569-3300 TTY 711 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Fox:763-S69-3360 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Rental License Mitigation Plan--Type IV Rental License Handwritten plans will not be accepted.Please type or use fellable form on City website. ; ehonA& 'ro forma>lan YropertyAddress�3300 67th Avenue N,B M,V5429 s=rooklynCeer x , Ni Serg'ey KUnln _ � LocalAgent O}vner Address p64 SAgent Address — t { 98316 KeIngton Court,Minnetonka MN 55345 x IZZ Owner Phone 612=616 291 AgentPhone . O �, s�anar�@comcast et A } • Rental Ltcense �❑New Q Renewal -'Current Ltcense�Ex trattoiiDale s `� . P Pending-hype IV License-Exp'Date ` ,. n.> (Six months om current license ex rratlon Based on property conditions and/or validated police nuisance incidents,the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License. Before your license_application can be considered by the City Council, a Mitigation Plan must be completed and reviewed by City staff. A fully completed Mitigation Plan must be submitted immediately to ensure timely completion of the license application process. The Mitigation Plan should indicate the steps being taken to correct identified violations and the measures that will be taken to ensure ongoing compliance with City Ordinances and applicable Codes. The Mitigation Plan provides an 1 opportunity to review property concerns and identify possible solutions to improve the overall conditions and management of the property. NOTICE: Time is Running Out--You must TAKE ACTION NOW in order to meet all the city ordinance and Mitigation Plan requirements within this*pending license period and avoid legal actions. 'S.ec onB-RequirecIlocllmClltSi3v �' a * Y `s � xa PSubmit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval: = I. Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate(if completed,if not completed,please include �p scheduled date in Section C. l y L 2. Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum 3. Submit written report by I e of each month(after license approval). GG44,,c ola_C �rimeFree Iiouan P o r m e Y utrements aN - ael 1: Use written lease including Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. 2. Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if w. (—v� requested. E '3: Pursue the eviction of tenants who violate the terms of the lease or any addendums. Page 1 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 I i 4. Attend City approved eight hour Crime Free Housing course. Date Course Completed: January 18,2012 or Date Course Scheduled: January 1s,262 Phase II Complete Security Assessment and implement all security improvements recommended by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Date Scheduled: completed and approved by Becky Bole Improvements to be completed by: December 2011 Phase III I will attend a minimum of 50%of the ARM meetings(two). I will attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: November e,2012 & January and March 2013 Do these two meeting dates occur before the*Pending Type IVLicense expiration date? FMI Yes❑No (*See Section A)If no,you will only be able to qualify for a Type IY Rental License upon renewal. I will have no repeat code violations previously documented within the past year. For properties with four or more units: I will conduct resident training annually that includes crime prevention techniques. I will hold regular resident meetings. �Sect�n DT won �Terri��a italIm _rov Based on condition and age;estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital items. Funding should be considered accordingly. However,items broken,worn or otherwise in violation prior to the estimated replacement date will require earlier corrections. Date Last Replaced Estimated Replacement Date FumacelAC- 2025 Water Heater- 2016 Kitchen Appliances- 2015 Laundry Appliances- Exterior - Paint/Siding;fascia,trim g2 i -Windows . 2020 -Roof 2020 -Fence -Shed. �t -Garage -Driveway '2016 -Sidewalks N IA- Smoke Alarms&Carbon Monoxide Alarms Othdr(s) „Sec ion . She 9#orIm rovew ement�andofndri�ions Implementing the following best practices may.assist in the management of your property. By checking the boxes below,you agree to: 1. Check in with tenants every 30 days. 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a month. Page 2- Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 3. Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums. F✓ 4. Provide lawn/snow service. v 5. Provide garbage service. ® 6. Install Security System. Center Point Energy Service Plus M7- Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.: Mg. I am and will remain current on payment of utility fees,taxes,assessments,fines,penalties and other financial claims due to the City. ® 9. Other(s): Please read thoroughly: If the Type IV Rental License is approved by the City Council,the Licensee must comply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable city codes. No later than the I Oa'of each calendar month,the licensee must submit to the Building and Community Standards Department a written report describing all steps taken to comply with the Mitigation Plan. I verify that all information provided above is true and accurate. I understand that if I do not comply with an approved Mitigation Plan,comply with all applicable ordinances within the license period,or operate beyond the license expiration date;enforcement actions such as citations,formal complaint or license review may result. Sergey Kunin Owner or Agent Name and Title(Pleas in t) October 18, 2012 Owner or Agent Signature Date Additional Owner or Agent Name and Title(if applicable)(Please Print) Additional Owner or Agent Signature (if applicable) Date For City Use--Mitigatiou P Approved By: Loh# Police L?�epartpkent/Ti ate tb r �- Building&C m 'ty Standards Department/Title Date Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 City Council Agenda Item loo. lob i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5224 65th Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License and Mitigation Plan for 5224 65th Avenue N. If the Council chooses not to issue the license, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for denial of the rental license for the next Council meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. The previous rental license was a Type III— one year license. The property qualifies for a Type IV provisional rental license based on 17 property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection and zero validated police incidents/nuisance calls for the past twelve months. Staff from Administration, Building & Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan, which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV Rental License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 06-29-2012 The Owner, Pavel Sakurets, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 522465 th Avenue N, a single family dwelling. 07-27-2012 An initial rental inspection was conducted. Seventeen property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 08-21-2012 A follow up rental inspection was scheduled,however,no one was on site to meet the inspector. 09-30-2012 The previous rental license expired. 10-05-2012 A follow up inspection was conducted and passed. 10-05-2012 City records indicate zero validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the past twelve months. 10-09-2012 A letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 10-18-2012 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conrnnnity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i it COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 10-24-2012 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 11-02-2012 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held November 13, 2012. Prior Type III Rental License approval activities: 07-11-2011 Pavel Sakurets applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5224 65th Avenue N, a single family residential property. 08-09-2011 An initial rental inspection was scheduled,however,the tenant did not allow the inspector access to the property. 08-31-2011 An initial rental inspection was conducted(eight property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria). 09-30-2011 The owner was granted an extension to complete repairs. 10-04-2011 A follow up rental inspection was conducted and passed. 10-04-2011 City records indicate zero validated police incident/nuisance call occurred in the past twelve months. 01-09-2012 A Type III—one year rental license was approved by the City Council with an expiration date of 09-30-2012. 01-10-2012 A letter was sent to the owner notifying of qualification for Type III One year Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license (submit action plan, completion of Phases I, and II of Crime Free Housing Program, etc.) 01-27-2012 A second letter was sent to the owner notifying of qualification for Type III One year Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license (submit action plan, completion of Phases 1, and II of Crime Free Housing Program, etc.) 02-06-2012 An Action Plan was received. 05-18-2012 An Action Plan was approved. If approved, after six months, a new rental license will be required. The license process will begin immediately. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terns of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chanter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1. Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people aid presewes the public trust I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 3. Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-91 Y to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures,rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4. Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence,the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions,it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan,the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license,the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month,the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Rental License Category Criteria Policy—Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1. Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2. Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect,monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust it COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 3. Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4. License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may,upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100%of the units are not inspected,the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units,to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I—3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+units 0-0.75` Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+-units Greater than 0,75 but not more-than L5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+units -Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+units Greater than-3 b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide,rape, robbery, aggravated assault,burglary,theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act,Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of"Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service& Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 34 units 0-025 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4-units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Mission:Ensuring an attractive,elean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and presems the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: i There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: - We will ensure a safe and secure community - We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Attachment -Mitigation Plan i i Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conununity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i ^ Owner Address: Ajent Address- 809 Mainstreet,H,1pkins,MN 55343 809 Mainstreei,Hopkins,MN 55343 Owner Phonc:651.235.8972 Ai:et Phone:612.214.0644 Owner Email: Rental License: F1 New Renewal- Current 14cense Expiration Date:913012012 *Pending Type IV License Exp.Date: Based on property conditions antill validated police nuisance incidents,the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV Rental Lice so. BeFore your license application can be considered by the City Council, a Mitigation Plan must be comple d and reviewed by City'staff. A fully completed Mitigation Plan must be / submitted immediately to ensure t! ely completion of the,license application process. The Mitigation Plan City of Brooklyn Cei iter Phone:763-S69-3300 TTY711 6301 Shingle Creek Parki vay Fax:763-569-3360 Brooklyn Center,MN55430-2199 www.0yofbrooklyncenter-org Rental Lice=Mitigation Plan--Type IV Rental License Handwritten plaits will nat be accepted,Please Ope or usefillablefornz on City webstfe. Section A—Property Worm ation Property Address:5224 65th A,(e North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Owner Name-On Time Contractors,Rei it Estate Division,LLG Local-Ageril:Vadim Komisarchik should indicate the steps being tak n to correct identified violations and the measures that will be taken to ensure ongoing compliance with C ty Ordinances and applicable Codes. The Mitigation Plan provides an opportunity to review property con.,ems and identify possible solutions to improve the overall conditions and management of the property. NOTICE- Time is Running 0 it--You must TAKE ACTION NOW in order to meet all the city ordinance and Mitigation Plat I requirements within this*pending license period and avoid legal actions. Section B—Required Doduntients Submit the following documents x(ith the Mitigation Plan for approval: 1. Crime Free Housing Pr(gram Training Certificate(if completed,if not completed,please include scheduled date in Sectic n C. 2. Copy of Lease includinj�Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum q v 3. Submit written report by 101h of each month(after license approval). Section-C—Crime Free Hov sing Program Re4giremeno I. Use written lease includ ng Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. 5-71 2. Conduct criminal backg-ound check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if M3. Pursue the eviction of ix nants who violate the terms of the lease or any addendums. Page I Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 /| � / / ( � [ Y 14. Attend City approved eigl it hour Crime Free Housing course. Date Course Completed: 11412011 or Date Course Scheduled: Phase U Complete Security Assessm ent and implement all security improvements recommended by the Brooklyn Center Police Del iartment. Date Scheduled: It was completed on ill 1/2012 Improvements to be completed by: �P-v 1h�as-e-�III f 1 will attend a minimum of S %of the ARM meetings(two). 1 will attend the ARM meeth gs scheduled for: 1118112 &11=013 Do these two meeting dates ccur before the*Pending Type IV Ltcense expiration date?Q Yes❑No (*See Section A)If no,you will only be able to qualify for a Type IV Rental License upon renewal. I will have no repeat code violations previously documented within the past year. Far properties with four or more at.its: ® I will conduct resident trainii ig annually that includes crime prevention techniques, I will hold regular resident meetings. Section D—TAng Term'Cap ital Im Irovement$Plan Based on condition and age,estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital items. Funding should be considered accordingly. F owever,items broken,worn or otherwise in violation prior to the estimated replacement date will require earlier corrections. Date Last Replaced Estimated Replacement Date Furnace/AC- 11112020 Water Heater- 11112020 Kitchen Applianc es- 1112020 Laundry Appliances- ( 11112020 Exterior -Paint/Siding,fascia,trim 912612012 -Windows 1fl12020 -Roof 111rm20 -Fence 111/2020 -Shed N/A WA -Garage T—-- 1/112020 -Driveway 1/1/2020 -Sidewalks 1112020 Smoke Alarms&Carbon Monoxidg Alarms 912512012 Other(s) Section E—Steps to Im ra a Maus ement ano..;Conditions of Proper '• Implementing the following best pr ictices may assist in the,management of your property. By checking the boxes below,you gree to: ' I v 1 1. Check in with tenants el cry 30 days. 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a month. Page 2 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 IL_=13. Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums. ✓ 4. Provide lawn/snow servic . S. Provide garbage service. ® d. Install security system. NIC0ll8t Appliance 7. Provide maintenance sere ce plan for appliances. Name of service co.: 8. I am and will remain current on payment of utility fees,taxes,assessments,fines,penalties and other financial claims due to tht City. 9. Other(s): Please read thoroughly: If the Type IV Rental License is appiroved by the City Council,the Licensee must comply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable city codes. No later than the 1001 of each calendar month,the licensee must submit to the Building and Commu ity Standards Department a written report describing all steps taken to comply with the Mitigation Plan. I verify that all information provide' above is true and accurate. I understand that if I do not comply with an approved Mitigation Plan,comply Nyytth alt applicable ordinances within the license period,or operate beyond the license expiration date;enforcZent actions such as citations,formal complaint or license review may result. Vadim Komisarchi Ik/Property Manager Owner or Agent Name and Title(Pie .se Print) 1011 312012 Owner or Agent Signature Date Additional Owner or Agent Name ani I Title(lf applicable)(Please Print) Additional Owner or Agent Signature (fapplicable) Date ['as t:ii'._t ;c-- lit: at•,n t>Ia Approv d By: /Ywh � 1 Z Pot a Depart nt/ tie L baie uiid R. .nity Standards apartment/Title Date Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 i City Council Agenda Item No. 10c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5712 Bryant Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License and mitigation plan for 5712 Bryant Ave N. If the Council chooses not to issue the license, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for denial of the rental license for the next Council meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a new rental license. This property qualifies for a Type IV provisional rental license based on 29 property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection. Staff from Administration, Building& Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan, which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 12-12-2011 The Owner, Hwan Hwang, applied for an initial rental dwelling license for 5712 Bryant Ave N, a single-family residential property. 12-13-2011 An initial rental inspection was conducted. (29 property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria) 01-13-2012 A follow up inspection was scheduled. The inspector was not allowed access. 02-03-2012 A follow up inspection was scheduled. The inspector was not allowed access. 02-17-2012 A follow up inspection was conducted and failed. 02-17-2012 A$100 reinspection fee was assessed to the property. 03-30-2012 A phone call was conducted with the owner regarding license requirements. The property was posted as unlicensed. A$300 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a valid rental license. 04-06-2012 A follow up inspection was conducted and failed. 04-06-2012 A$100 reinspection fee was assessed to the property. 05-03-2012 A follow up inspection was scheduled,but not completed. The owner was not available. 05-03-2012 A$100 reinspection fee was assessed to the property. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 05-09-2012 The $300 reinspection fees were paid. 05-17-2012 The rental inspection was conducted and passed. 05-21-2012 A letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License,including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 06-13-2012 A second letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 06-26-2012 A$125 Administrative Citation was issued for failing to submit a mitigation plan. 07-12-2012 A$250 Administrative Citation was issued for failing to submit a mitigation plan. 07-23-2012 A mitigation plan was submitted and was rejected due to missing information. 08-23-2012 A $500 Administrative Citation was issued for failing to submit a mitigation plan. 09-13-2012 A$1000 Administrative Citation was issued for failing to submit a mitigation plan. 09-24-2012 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 10-17-2012 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 10-23-2012 The property was posted as unlicensed. 11-02-2012 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held November 13, 2012 If approved, after six months, a new rental license will be required. The license process will begin in approximately four months. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: i Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1. Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. 3. Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and presems the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4. Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. .After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence,the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan,the Council will consider, among other things,the facility,its management practices,the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license,the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month,the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Rental License Category Criteria Policy—Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1. Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2. Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect,monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3. Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4. License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25%of units,to include a minimum of 12 units,will be inspected for i properties with 16 or more units. i i I i Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life Jar all people and preserves the public trust I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I—3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+units 0-0.75 = Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1:5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+units _ Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+units JQ&dtof than 3 b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide,rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary,theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are"Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of"Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service &Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2- 0-1 Impact 3-4 nits 0-0.25 _ 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inchssive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: - We will ensure a safe and secure community - We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Attachment -Mitigation Plan Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the duality of life for all people and preserves the public trust I mljpPw City of Brooklyn Center Phone:763-569-3300 TTY 711 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Fax:763-569-3360 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org IM Rental License Mitigation Plan--Type IV Rental License Handwritten plans will not be accepted,Please type or use fellable form on City website. S. Owner 'P, NXVNP=�-?Jt�-_,'-�_ dd r 3912 hbIs6a'(t" nsvi,Burr I'L0000j;i le M one-, - ,v '�9522926090",­�,'jk2 vner Owner mail gen A E maj V Rental LSpense FEUNQ RMOW_41 Current p 7T ­ k 1,&Me:.EXP,iD t a 6 Based on property conditions and/or validated police nuisance incidents,the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License. Before your license application can be considered by the City Council, a Mitigation Plan must be completed and reviewed by City staff. A fully completed Mitigation Plan must be submitted immediately to ensure timely completion of the license application process. The Mitigation Plan should indicate the steps being taken to correct identified violations and the*measures that will be taken to ensure ongoing compliance with City Ordinances and applicable Codes. The Mitigation Plan provides an opportunity to review property concerns and identify possible solutions to improve the overall conditions and management of the property. NOTICE: Time is Running Out--You must TAKE ACTION NOW in order to meet all the city ordinance and Mitigation Plan requirements within this*pending license period and avoid legal actions. Submit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval: 1. Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate(if completed,if not completed,please include scheduled date in Section C. 2. Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum N( l 3. Submit written report by 10`h of each month(after license approval). !Aqrg - -f _Jrgqr 14 1X9 _2L 1 pq ' - ---I_ - Elf p, g.r --Mase I 1. Use written lease including Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. FZ 12. Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if EL) requested. 3. Pursue the eviction of tenants who violate the terms of the lease orany addendurns. Page I Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 i 4. Attend City approved eight hour Crime Free Housing course. Date Course Completed: or Date Course Scheduled: Phase II Complete Security Assessment and implement all security improvements recommended by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. kr Date Scheduled: 104 f a Improvements to be completed by: �' JJ_ Phase III I y l I will attend a minimum of 50%of the ARM meetings(two). I will attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: Nov 2012 & Jan 2013 Do these two meeting dates occur before the*Pending Type IV License expiration date? Yes No (*See Section A)If no,you will only be able to qualify for a Type IV Rental License upon renewal. I will have no repeat code violations previously documented within the past year. For properties with four or more units: I will conduct resident training annually that includes crime prevention techniques. I will hold regular resident meetings. Setlon neimCa r4.yelri nt B, �an E... s� -� Based on condition and age,estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital items. Funding should be considered accordingly. However,items broken,wom or otherwise in violation prior to the estimated replacement date will require earlier corrections. Date Last Replaced Estimated Rep lacement Date Furnace/AC- 12/2011 2031 Water Heater- 12/2011 2025 Kitchen Appliances- 112012 2022 Laundry Appliances- 1/2012 2022 Exterior -Paint/Siding,fascia,trim 4/2012 2017 -Windows 4/2012 2022 -Roof 512012 2032 -Fence na -Shed 6/2012 2022 -Garage na -Driveway 2010 2030 -Sidewalks na Smoke Alarms&Carbon Monoxide Alarms 6/2012 2022 Other(_O, ,*;. X •t e`etlon Sfe s>ta0 n roYMana emenfaf�cl_Condi �nofPro`,er . Implementing the following best practices may assist in the management of your property. By checking the boxes below,you agree to: �✓ 1. Check in with tenants every 30 days. 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a month. Page 2 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 i III III 3. Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums. 4.. Provide lawn/snow service. 7-15. Provide garbage service. ® 6. Install security system. Kocon LLC 5717. Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.:f 8. I am and will remain current on payment of utility fees,taxes,assessments,fines,penalties and other financial claims due to the City. F-19. Other(s): Please read thoroughly: If the Type IV Rental License is approved by the City Council,the Licensee must comply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable city codes. No later than the 10h of each calendar month,the licensee must submit to the Building and Community Standards Department a written report describing all steps taken to comply with the Mitigation Plan. I verify that all information provided above is true and accurate. I understand that if I do not comply with an approved Mitigation Plan,comply with all applicable ordinances within the license period,or operate beyond the license expiration date;enforcement actions s, as citations,formal complaint or license review may result. Owner or Agent Name and Title(Please rint) Owner or Agent Signature Date Additional Owner or Agent Name and Title(if applicable)(Please Print) Additional Owner or Agent Signature (if applicable) Date Tor City Use--�ti'*ution Plau Approved By: olice Department/Title Da e D i(. 12- B ding ommunrty Standards Department/Title Date Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION November 13, 2012 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. Community Survey Review 2. Metro Cities Policy Review—Appointment of Voting Delegate 3. Council—Staff Retreat 4. City Manager's Compensation PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1. National League of Cities Service Line Program 2. Sister City Update 3. Assessment Hearing Policy 4. Watershed Plan Update Review 5. Annual Reports—Departmental 6. Strategic Plan Annual Report 7. 2013 Legislative Issues Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 j MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: November 13, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, issistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards SUBJECT: Community Survey Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council view the enclosed questions proposed for the city wide Community Survey. Background: I, I The City of Brooklyn Center has contracted with Decision Resources, LTD to conduct the city wide community survey. This type of survey was last conducted in 2008. The survey consists of approximately 150 total questions, which includes follow up questions to certain responses. Similar to the previous survey, this survey will consist of 400 randomly selected residents interviewed by telephone. i The survey is designed to include some typical benchmarks comparable to other cities, as well as items included in the previous City of Brooklyn Center survey. Some modifications to the survey have been made in order to ensure city goals performance measures are adequately addressed, including the updated diversity/inclusion goals and environmental goal. Policy Issues: None i Council Goals: Strategic: 6. We will increase the engagement of all segments of the community Attachments: Community Survey i Mission,Ensuring all attractive,cleats,sa nrchisive communit{�that enhances the quaNty of life for all people and preserves fire public trust DECISION RESOURCES, LTD. City of Brooklyn Center 3128 Dean Court Residential Survey Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 PRELIMINARY NOVEMBER 2012 Hello I 'm of Decision Resources Ltd. , a ollin firm P g located in Minneapolis. We have been retained by the City of Brooklyn Center to speak with a random sample of residents about issues facing the community. This survey is being conducted because the City Council and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions about current and future city needs. I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will be reported. 1. Approximately how many years have LESS THAN TWO YEARS. . . . . 1 you lived in Brooklyn Center? TWO TO FIVE YEARS. . . . . . . 2 FIVE TO TEN YEARS. . . . . . . 3 TEN TO TWENTY YEARS. . . . . 4 20 TO 30 YEARS. . . . . . . . . . 5 OVER THIRTY YEARS. . . . . . . 6 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 7 2 . As things now stand, how long in LESS THAN TWO YEARS. . . . . 1 the future do you expect to TWO TO FIVE YEARS. . . . . . . 2 live in Brooklyn Center? FIVE TO TEN YEARS. . . . . . . 3 OVER TEN YEARS. . . . . . . . . . 4 REST OF LIFE. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 6 3. What do you like most, if anything, about living in Brooklyn . Center? 4 . What do you think is the most serious issue facing Brooklyn Center today? 5. How would you rate the quality of EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 life in Brooklyn Center -- excel- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 lent, good, only fair, or poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 For each of the following statements, please strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. . . . STA AGR DIS STD DKR 6. People have pride and ownership in our neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 7 . I am proud to live in Brooklyn Center. 1 2 3 4 5 8 . How would you rate the strength of EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . community identity and the sense GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 of neighborliness in Brooklyn ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Center -- excellent, good, only POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 fair or poor? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 9. To which of the following do you STATEMENT A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 feel a closer connection to: STATEMENT B. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A) The City of Brooklyn Center as STATEMENT C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a whole, NONE OF ABOVE. .*. . . . . . . . . 4 B) Your neighborhood, or DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 C) Your school district? 10. All in all, do you think things in RIGHT DIRECTION. . . . . . . . . 1 Brooklyn Center are generally WRONG TRACK. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 headed in the right direction, or DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 do you feel things are off on the wrong track? Changing topics. . . . I would like to read you list of characteristics in a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Brooklyn Center cur- rently has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the right amount. (ROTATE LIST) MANY FEW/ ABOUT D.K. / MUCH LITT RIGHT REF. 11. Affordable rental apartments 1 2 3 4 12 . Luxury rental apartments 1 2 3 4 MANY FEW/ ABOUT D.K. / MUCH LITT RIGHT REF. 13. Rental homes? 1 2 3 4 14 . Condominiums or townhouses? 1 2 3 4 15. Starter homes for young families? 1 2 3 4 16. "Move up" housing? 1 2 3 4 17 . Higher cost housing? 1 2 3 4 18 . Senior housing? 1 2 3 4 19. Affordable housing, defined by the Metropolitan Council as a single family home costing less than $160, 250? 1 2 3 4 20 . Service establishments? 1 2 3 4 21. Retail shopping opportunities? 1 2 3 4 22 . Entertainment establishments? 1 2 3 4 23. Dining establishments? 1 2 3 4 24 . How would you rate general redev- EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 elopment in the City of Brooklyn GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Center -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 IF A RATING IS GIVEN, ASK: 25 . Why do you feel that way? 26. Do you support or oppose the con- STRONGLY SUPPORT. . . . . . . . 1 tinued redevelopment in the City SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 of Brooklyn Center? (WAIT FOR OPPOSE. . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RESPONSE) Do you feel strongly STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . 4 that way? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 27 . Are there any types of development you would like to see in the city? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What are they? 28 . Are there any types of development you would strongly op pose? As the City of Brooklyn Center continues redevelopment. . . . 29. Do you support or oppose the City STRONGLY SUPPORT. . . . . . . . 1 providing financial incentives to SUPPORT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 attract specific types of develop- OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ment? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you STRONGLY OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . 4 feel strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 Moving on. . . . .30 . How would you rate the general EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 condition and appearance of homes GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 in the community -- excellent, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 good, only fair, or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 31 . Over the past two years, has the IMPROVED. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 1 appearance of your neighborhood DECLINED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 improved, declined or remained REMAINED THE SAME. . . . . . . 3 the same? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 4 For each of the following, please tell me whether the City is too tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing city codes on the nuisances . TOO NOT ABO DK/ TOU TOU RIG REF 32 . Loose animals? 1 2 3 4 33. Junk cars on residential property? 1 2 3 4 34 . Messy yards on residential property? 1 2 3 4 35. Messy yards on commercial j property? 1 2 3 4 36. Weeds and tall grass? 1 2 3 4 37 . Noise? 1 2 3 4 38 . On street parking? 1 2 3 4 39 . Properties with vacant homes? 1 2 3 4 it 40. Are you aware of homes or proper- YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ties in your neighborhood that are NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 in foreclosure? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 41 . Do you have any concerns about the homes or properties in your neighborhood that are in foreclosure? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What would those be? 42 . How would you rate the water qual- EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ity in city lakes, streams and GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 rivers -- excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 fair or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 Moving on. . . . 43. Do you consider the city portion VERY HIGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 of your property taxes to be SOMEWHAT HIGH. . . . . . . . . . .2 very high, somewhat high, about ABOUT AVERAGE. . . . . . . . . . . 3 average, somewhat low, or very low SOMEWHAT LOW. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 in comparison with neighboring VERY LOW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 cities? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 6 44 . When you consider the property EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 taxes you pay and the quality GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 of- city services you receive, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 would you rate the general value POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 of city services as excellent, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 good, only fair, or poor? In 2012, the actual percentage of your property taxes going to the City of Brooklyn Center was about percent. 45. Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 crease in YOUR city property tax OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 if it were needed to maintain city DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 services at their current level? i IF "OPPOSE, " ASK: II 46. What city services would you be willing to see cut? 47 . Would you favor or oppose an in- FAVOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 crease in city property taxes to OPPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 enhance current city services or DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 offer additional city services? IF "FAVOR, " ASK: 48 . What services would you like to see enhanced or of- fered? 49 . How much would you be willing NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 to pay in additional property $20. 00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 taxes to enhance city ser- $40 . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03 vices or offer additional $60 . 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 city services? How about $80. 00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 $ per year? (CHOOSE A $100. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 RANDOM STARTING POINT; MOVE $120. 00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RE- $140. 00 . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 08 SPONSE) How about $ per $160. 00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 year? (REPEAT PROCESS) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 10 I would like to read you a list of a few city services. For each one, please tell me whether you would rate the quality of the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor? (ROTATE) EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 50. Police protection? 1 2 3 4 5 51. Fire protection? 1 2 3 4 5 52. Recycling pick-up? 1 2 3 4 5 53. Storm drainage and flood control? 1 2 3 4 5 54. Park maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5 55. City-sponsored recreation programs? 1 2 3 4 5 56. Animal control? 1 2 3 4 5 57 . Emergency medical response? 1 2 3 4 5 I EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R i 58 . City drinking water? 1 2 3 4 5 59. Property maintenance enforcement? 1 2 3 4 5 60 . Building and construction inspections? 1 2 3 4 5 Now, for the next three city services, please consider only their job on city-maintained street and roads. That means excluding interstate highways, state and county roads that are taken care of by other levels of government. Hence, Interstate 694, Highway 100, Highway 252, County Road 81 or Brooklyn Boule- vard, should not be considered. How would you rate . . . . EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR DK/R 61. City street repair and maintenance? 1 2 3 4 5 62 . Snow plowing? 1 2 3 4 5 63. Street lighting? 1 2 3 4 5 64 . Does your household regularly YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 participated in the curbside NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 recycling program? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 65 . Have you done anything during the past two years to reduce your use of energy? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What would that be? Thinking about another topic. . . . 66. Are there areas in the City of YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Brooklyn Center where you do not NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 feel safe? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 67 . In which areas do you not feel safe? 68 . What would make you feel more safe? 69. Do you feel safe in your immediate YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I neighborhood walking alone at NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 night? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 70. Do you participate in Neighborhood YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Watch? NO. 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 71. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 police patrolling in your neigh- ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT. . . . . . 2 boyhood -- too much, about the NOT ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 right amount or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 4 72. How would you rate the amount of TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 traffic enforcement by the police ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT. . . . . . 2 in your neighborhood -- too much, NOT ENOUGH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 about right amount or not enough? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 4 73. How serious of a problem is traf- VERY SERIOUS. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 fic speeding in your neighborhood SOMEWHAT SERIOUS. . . . . . . . 2 -- very serious, somewhat serious, NOT TOO SERIOUS. . . . . . . . . 3 not too serious, or not at all NOT AT ALL SERIOUS. . . . . . 4 serious? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 74 . Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest concern in Brooklyn Center? If you feel that none of these problems are serious, just say so. Violent crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 Traffic speeding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 Traffic volume on residential streets . . . . . . . . . . . 03 Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 Youth crimes and vandalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05 Identity theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06 Business crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 07 Residential crimes, such as burglary, and theft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08 Vandalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 ALL EQUALLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 NONE OF THE ABOVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 IF "VIOLENT CRIME, " ASK: 75 . What specific violent crime are you most concerned about? Continuing. . . . The Brooklyn Center park system is composed of larger community parks and smaller neighborhood parks, trails, community ballfields and the Community Center. For each of the following, which have you or members of your household used during the past year? Then for each one you or members of your household have used, please rate it as excellent, good, only fair, or poor. NOT USE USE USE USE DK/ USE EXC GOO FAI POO REF 76. Trails? 1 2 3 4 5 6 77 . Community Center? 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 . Football fields? 1 2 3 4 5 6 79 . Baseball fields? 1 2 3 4 5 6, 80. Soccer fields? 1 2 3 4 5 6 81 . Ice rinks? 1 2 3 4 5 6 82. Tennis courts? 1 2 3 4 5 6 I NOT USE USE USE USE DK/ USE EXC GOO FAI POO REF 83. Basketball courts? 1 2 3 4 5 6 84 . Larger community parks? 1. 2 3 4 5 6 85. Smaller neighborhood parks? 1 2 3 4 5 6 IF USE LARGER COMMUNITY PARKS OR SMALLER NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, ASK: NOT USE USE USE USE DK/ USE EXC GOO FAI POO REF 86. Playground equipment? 1 2 3 4 5 6 87. Which park, if any do you consider to be your neighborhood park? IF A PARK IS MENTIONED, ASK: 88 . Do you feel safe when using YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 the park? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 89 . What improvements, if any, would like to see made to the park? 90. Are you aware the City runs the NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Centerbrook Golf Course? (IF YES/YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 "YES, " ASK: ) Have you or members YES/NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 of your household played the golf DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . . 4 course during the past two years? IF "YES/YES, " ASK: 91. How would you rate your ex- EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 perience at Centerbrook Golf GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Course - excellent, good, ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 only fair or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . ._. . . 5 IF "YES/NO, " ASK: 92 . Why have you not used the Centerbrook Golf Course? 93 . In general, do you feel that YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 existing recreational facilities NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 offered by the City meet the DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 needs of you and members of your household? IF "NO, " ASK: 94 . What additional recreational facilities would you like to see the City offer its residents? 95 . Have you or members of your house- YES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 hold participated in any City NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 park and recreation programs? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 IF "YES, " ASK: i 96. Which ones? I I I i i i 97 . How would you rate the qual- EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ity of program - excellent, GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 good, only fair' or poor? ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 98 . Does the current mix of City park YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 and recreation programming meet NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 the needs of your household? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . : . 3 IF "NO, " ASK: 99 . What program(s) do you feel are lacking? 100 . Do you or members of your household currently leave the city for park and recreation facilities or activities? (IF "YES, " ASK: ) What facility or activity would that be? 101. What is your principal source of information about parks and recreation programs and facilities in the City of Brooklyn Center? 1 102 . How would you prefer .to receive information about parks and recreation programs and facilities in the city? Moving on. . . . i I 103 . How satisfied are you with your VERY SATISFIED. . . . . . . . . . . 1 level of involvement in activities SOMEWHAT SATISFIED. . . . . . .2 and meetings in your neighborhood SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED. . . .3 and the city - very satisfied, VERY DISSATISFIED. . . . . . . . 4 somewhat satisfied, somewhat dis- DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . .5 satisfied, or very dissatisfied? IF "SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED" OR "VERY DISSATISFIED, " ASK: 104. What could the City do to help you become more involved? As you may know, the populations of most inner ring suburban areas are becoming more diverse in terms of age, household income, race, and ethnicity. 105. In general, do you think that GOOD THING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 growing population diversity is a BAD THING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 good thing or a bad thing for the BOTH (VOL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 community? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 4 IF A RESPONSE IS GIVEN, ASK: 106. Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? 107 . Currently, how well prepared do VERY WELL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 you think the community is to meet SOMEWHAT WELL. . . . . . . . . . .2 the growing diversity of residents NOT TOO WELL. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -- very well, somewhat well, not NOT AT ALL WELL. . . . . . . . . 4 too well, or not at all well? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 IF "NOT TOO WELL" OR "NOT AT ALL WELL, " ASK: 108 . Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that way? i 109. Do you think the City of Brooklyn TOO MUCH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Center is doing too much, too TOO LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 little or about the right amount ABOUT RIGHT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 for minority families in the city? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 4 IF "TOO LITTLE" OR "TOO MUCH, " ASK: 110. Why do you feel that way? Changing topics. . . . 111 . Other than voting, do you feel YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 that if you wanted to, you could NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 have a say about the way the City DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 of Brooklyn Center runs things? 112 . How much do you feel you know A GREAT DEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 about the work of the Mayor and A FAIR AMOUNT. . . . . . . . . . .2 City Council -- a great deal, a VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 fair amount, very little, or none NONE AT ALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 at all? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 113 . From what you know, do you approve STRONGLY APPROVE. . . . . . . . 1 or disapprove of the job the Mayor APPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 and City Council are doing. (WAIT DISAPPROVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FOR RESPONSE) And do you feel STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. . . . . 4 strongly that way? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 114 . How much first hand contact have QUITE A LOT. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 you had with the Brooklyn Center SOME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 City staff -- quite a lot, some, VERY LITTLE. . . . . . . . . . . .. .3 very little, or none? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . .5 i 115. From what you have heard or seen, EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 how would you rate the job per- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 formance of the Brooklyn Center ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 City staff -- excellent, good, POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 only fair, or poor? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 i 116. During the past year, have you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 contacted Brooklyn Center City NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Hall? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 117 . On your last telephone call POLICE DEPARTMENT. . . . . . 01 or visit, which Department FIRE DEPARTMENT. . . . . . . . 02 did you contact -- the Police PUBLIC WORKS. . . . . . . . . . . 03 Department, Fire Department, COMMUNITY CENTER. . . . . . . 04 Public Works, Community Cen- HOUSING AND ter, Housing and Property PROPERTY MAINT. . . . 05 Maintenance, Park and PARKS AND REC. . . . . . . . . . 06 Recreation, Building Inspec- BUILDING INSPECT. . . . . . . 07 tions, Engineering, Planning, ENGINEERING. . . . . . . . . . . . 08 Administration, the Asses- PLANNING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 09 son' s Office, the Finance ADMINISTRATION. . . . . . . . . 10 Department, or the General ASSESSOR' S OFFICE. . . . . . 11 Information Desk reception- FINANCE DEPT. . . . . . . . . . . 12 ist? GENERAL INFORMATION. . . . 13 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . 14 Thinking about your last contact with the City, for each of the following characteristics, please rate the service as excellent, good, only fair, or poor. . . . EXC GOO FAI POO DKR 118. Waiting time for the reception- ist to help you? 1 2 3 4 5 119. Courtesy of city staff? 1 2 3 4 5 120. Ease of obtaining the service you needed? 1 2 3 4 5 Moving on. . . . . . 121 . What is your principal source of information about Brooklyn Center City Government and its activities? i 122 . How would you prefer to receive information about Brooklyn Center City Government and its activities? 123. During the past year, did you YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 receive the "City Watch, " the NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 City' s quarterly newsletter? DON' T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 IF "YES, " ASK: 124. Do you or any members of your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 household regularly read it? NO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 125. Does your household currently sub- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 scribe to cable television? NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 IF "YES, " ASK: As you may know, the City currently cablecasts City Council and Planning Commission meetings. 126. How often do you watch City FREQUENTLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Council or Planning Commis- OCCASIONALLY. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 lion meetings -- frequently, RARELY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 occasionally, rarely, or NEVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 never? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 127 . Do you have access to the Internet HOME ONLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 at home? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do WORK ONLY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 you have access to the Internet BOTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 at work? NEITHER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 IF "YES, " ASK: 128. How do you connect to the YES/DIAL-UP. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 internet at home--on a dial- YES/DSL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 up modem, DSL, Comcast Cable YES/COMCAST CABLE. . . . . . . 3 High Speed Internet, cell- YES/CELLULAR WIRELESS. . . 4 ular wireless, or some other YES/SOME OTHER WAY. . . . . . 5 way? (IF "OTHER, " ASK: ) DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 6 How? The City redesigned its website in June 2011 . . . . 129. Have you accessed the City' s YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 new website? NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 F IF "YES, " ASK: 130. Were you able to find YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 what you were looking NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 for? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 i 131. What information would you like to see on the City of Brooklyn Center' s web site? I would like to ask you about social media sources. For each one, tell me if you currently use that source of information; . then, for each you currently use, tell me if you would be likely or unlikely to use it to obtain information about the City of Brooklyn .Center. NOT USE USE DK/ USE LIK NLK REF 132. Facebook? 1 2 3 4 133. Twitter? 1 2 3 4 134 . YouTube? 1 2 3 4 135. Blogs? 1 2 3 4 136. Podcasts? 1 2 3 4 137 . E-mail blasts? 1 2 3 4 II I 138 . How would you rate the City' s EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 overall performance in communicat- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ing key local issues to residents ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 in its publications, on the Web- POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 site, and on cable television -- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 excellent, good, only fair, or poor? Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes. . . . Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following age groups live in your household. 139. Persons 65 or over? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TWO OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 140 . Adults under 65? NONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 THREE OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . 3 141. School-aged children and pre- NONE: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 schoolers? ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 THREE OR MORE. . . . . . . . . . . 3 IF CHILDREN ARE PRESENT, ASK: 142 . Have your children partici- YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 pated in any city recreation NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 activities or education pro- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 3 grams during the past two years? IF "YES, " ASK: 143. How would you rate your EXCELLENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 children' s experience -- GOOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 - excellent, good, only ONLY FAIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 fair- or poor? POOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 IF "NO, " ASK: 144 . Why have your children not participated in any city recreation activities or education programs? 145. Do you own or rent your present OWN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 residence? 'RENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 146. What is your age, please? 18-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 (READ CATEGORIES, IF NEEDED) 25-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 35-44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45-54 . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . 4 55-64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 65 AND OVER. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 i 147 . Which of the following categories WHITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 represents your ethnicity -- AFRICAN-AMERICAN. . . . . . . . 2 White, African-American, Hispanic- HISPANIC-LATINO. . . . . . . . . 3 Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDER. . 4 Native American, or something NATIVE AMERICAN. . . . . . . . . 5 else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE, " ASK: ) SOMETHING ELSE. . . . . . . . . . 6 What would that be? MIXED/BI-RACIAL. . . . . . . . . ? DON'T KNOW. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 And now, for one final question, keeping in mind that your answers are held strictly confidential. . . . 148 . Thinking about your household fin- STATEMENT A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ances, how would you describe your STATEMENT B. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 financial situation, would you say STATEMENT C. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 that -- STATEMENT D. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A) Your monthly expenses are ex- DON'T KNOW/REFUSED. . . . . . 5 ceeding your income; B) You are meeting your monthly expenses but are putting aside little or no savings; C) You are managing comfortably while putting some money aside; D) Managing very well? Thank you for your time. Good-bye. I 149 . Gender MALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FEMALE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 150 . REGION OF CITY PRECINCT 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PRECINCT 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PRECINCT 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PRECINCT 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 PRECINCT 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 PRECINCT 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PRECINCT 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. Work Session Agenda Item No. 2 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: November 7, 2012 i TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: Metro Cities Policy Review—Designation of Voting Delegate Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review the proposed policies and designate a the voting delegate at the upcoming Annual Policy Adoption Meeting scheduled for Wednesday November 14th 2012 Background: As members of Metro Cities (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) we are afforded one vote on the Legislative Policies proposed for the upcoming year. These policies will become the official policy and talking points in lobbying our legislators during the upcoming legislative session. They have been crafted over the last several months by committees made up of member City representatives. The adoption protocol is outlined in the attached memo. After reviewing these policies the Council may choose to support all policies as presented or suggest amendments to the policies. Any amendment must be supported by five delegates to be heard on the floor. After the Council determines its level of satisfaction with the proposed policies, you may choose to designate a voting delegate to represent the City at the Annual Meeting. Policy Issues: Is the interest of Brooklyn Center best served by supporting the proposed Metro Cities Policies? Council Goals: We will ensure the city's influence at the legislature 11.07.12.metro.cities.policies Mission:Lnsurinu tin atlraetrve clean,safe,inclusive corruuunity that enhances the quality of Life for all people and preserves the public trust ! \ / � ` ME'A E ^~� A88OO'8f`oD of Metropolitan K3Un'O'O@Uf'eG October 23,2012 TO: City &4ouagory/Adndnio(rotnm FROM: Patricia Nauman,Executive Director,Metro Cities RE: Draft 2Ol3 Legislative Policies and Policy Adoption Meeting Enclosed are two copies o[[bc proposed 2Ol3 legislative policies for Metro Cities for your city's | review and consideration. (The policies are also ou-Uuo at ). These policy / recommendations were developed by over 100 city officials-who participated in our policy development proccxa` oudbnvobcounpprovodhy{boMoboChicaBoordofDirnoic«y. Thoaep0]ioieowUlbn ouuoiducnd and adopted by Metro Cities' full membership o{our/\omua|Policy Adoption Meeting on Wednesda- 14"'. Please be sure to oLheud the policy adoption ob `delexate who will represent their city's position on the policies. Delegates will be asked to identify themselves u1the 'okutinu/obeob'bn table. Metro Cities' protocol for adoption ofpolicies iooufollows: w ()ne vote per member city, and one additional vote for each 50,000 population above the initial +50`0D0 p Metro Ckiox` President will distinguish questions ofclarification or explanation and questions that could result hnoo amendment ofmpolicy ° Policy Committee C'hairs will present a sunirriary of the policies and amendments w Individual policies can be opened for discussion if five city delegates request a discussion * Discussion on individual policies will bc allowed and limited to |0ouiouioo e 'If there jou motion to amend uyoUoy'tbo9rc.5ido`dwill honor the motion if five ormore dclo8atcx request u vote bymunicipality * Any individual requesting n vote will be asked to verify their delegate oto1nx * If-five delegates request u vote, u vote will bc taken byouuujoipuUiy per our by-laws * If there is no di000auioo` or0zi}ovviug nuy individual votes on policies,the President will entertain n motion for adoption of the entire po}ioysection If you have any questions, please contact Lauric Jennings at 651-215-4000 or for more in1ormu6ou. m \�obo�oioxooynuouY�ovuo�borl4 ! ( }45 University Ave W 0 St.Paul,MN 55/03-%0440 Phone(65l)%)5'40080 Fax(65l)28l'l2990w«x.0YdnxOMok0N.or8 | i E' TRU u - ITI E S Association of Metropolitan Municipalities i Legislative January 2013 Table of Contents Municipal Revenue & Taxation (1) State and Local Fiscal Relationship (1-A) 1 Revenue Diversification (1-B) 2 Levy Limits (1-C) 2 Restrictions on Local Government Budgets (1-D) 2 Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements (1-E) 2 Local Government Aid (LGA) (1-F) 3 Local Government Aid Reform (1-G) 3 State Property Tax Relief Programs (1-H) 4 Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value (1-I) 4 Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program (14) 4 Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution(1-K) 5 Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits (1-L) 6 State Property Tax (1-M) 6 Class Rate Tax System (1-N) 6 Regional Facility Host Communities (1-0) 6 Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases (1-P) 7 City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance (1-Q) 7 Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) (1-R) 7 State Program Revenue Sources (1-S) 8 2013 Legislative Policies i Table of Contents i Post Employment Benefits (1-T) 8 Health Care Insurance Programs (1-U) 8 State Budget Stability (1-V) 8 Online Travel Companies and Taxes (1-W) 9 Taxation of Electronic Commerce (1-X) 9 General Legislation (2) Mandates, Zoning&Local Authority (2-A) 11 City Enterprise Activities (2-B) 11 Firearms on City Property (2-C) 11 911 Telephone Tax (2-D) 12 800 MHz Radio System (2-E) 12 Building Codes (2-F) 12 Administrative Fines (2-G) 13 Residential Care Facilities (2-H) 13 Annexation (2-I) 14 Housing Ordinance Enforcement(2-J) 14 i Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact (2-K) 15 Dangerous Substance Regulation (2-L) 15 Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority (2-M) 15 Organized Waste Collection (2-N) 15 Voter ID Implementation Costs (2-0) 16 i 2013 Legislative Policies ii Table of Contents Housing & Economic Development (3) Introduction 17 City Role in Housing (3-A) 17 City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing (3-B) 17 Inclusionary Housing(3-C) 18 Metropolitan Council Role in Housing(3-D) 18 Allocation of Affordable Housing Needs (3-E) 19 State Role in Affordable Housing (3-F) 20 Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing (3-G) 21 Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk (3-H) 22 Economic Development and Redevelopment (3-I) 23 Economic Development (3-I) (1) 23 Redevelopment (3-I) (2) 24 Tax Increment Financing (3-J) 25 Eminent Domain (3-K) 27 This Old House/This Old Shop (3-L) 28 Business Incentives Policy (3-M) 28 Internet Technology (3-N) 28 City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development (3-0) 29 Impaired Waters (3-P) 29 2013 Legislative Policies iii i Table of Contents Metropolitan Agencies (4) Goals and Principles for Regional Governance (4-A) 31 Regional Governance Structure (4-13) 32 Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council (4-C) 32 Oversight of Metropolitan Council (4-D) 32 Funding Regional Services (4-E) 33 Regional Systems,(4-F) 33 Review of Local Comprehensive Plans (4-G) 34 Comprehensive Planning Process (4-H) 34 Comprehensive Planning Schedule (4-I) 35 Local Zoning Authority (4-J) 35 Regional Growth (4-K) 35 Natural Resource Protection (4-L) 37 Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) (4-M) 37 Water Supply (4-N) 38 Service Availability Charge (SAC) (4-0) 39 Funding Regional Parks &Open Space (4-P) 40 Livable Communities (4-Q) 40 Density (4-R) 41 Transportation (5) Transportation Funding (5-A) 43 2013 Legislative Policies iv i Table of Contents Regional Transit System (5-B) 43. Transit Financing (5-C) 44 Street Improvement Districts (5-D) 45 Highway Turnbacks &Funding (5-E) 45 "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role (5-F) 45 Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws (5-G) 46 Airport Noise Mitigation(5-H) 46 Cities Under 5,000 Population (5-I) 46 County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula (5-J) 47 Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads (5-K) 47 Plat Authority (5-L) 48 I City Speed Limit Control (5-M) 48 MnDOT Maintenance 5-N et Bud g (5-N) 48 Transit Taxing District(5-0) 48 Complete Streets (5-P) 49 Committee Rosters (6) 2012 Housing &Economic Development Committee 51 2012 Metropolitan Agencies Committee 52 2012 Municipal Revenue &Taxation Committee 52 2012 Transportation &General Government Committee 53 2013 Le islafive Policies 9 v Table of Contents I I I� i i i 2013 Legislative Policies vi it o Municipal Revenue & QD Taxation(I) 1-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship Metro Cities supports a strong state and local fiscal relationship that emphasizes adequacy, equitability and accountability for public resources, and effective communication between the state, its cities, and the public about the roles and responsibilities of state and local governments. Metro Cities believes that the state and local relationship is in decline, as expressed through significant reductions in and increasingly unpredictable levels of state aids and credits. The diminishment of the state and local partnership has forced the funding of city services to be disproportionately reliant on the property tax and has placed an undue burden on city cash flows. Increasingly, cities are also bearing more of the responsibility for the costs for services that have historically been the responsibility of the state. Metro Cities supports a state and local fiscal relationship that affirms the goal of all citizens receiving adequate levels of basic public services at relatively similar levels of taxation, that compensates cities for service costs created by non-taxpaying users of city services, that reduces tax burden disparities among communities, and that assists cities with high needs and relatively low fiscal capacities. Metro Cities supports a strong state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the following principles: • Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that emphasizes maximizing efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication between the state and local units of government, and to the public, about state and local roles and responsibilities; • Certainty and predictability in revenue sources including the property tax and local government aids, and the use of dedicated funds that meet specific local government needs. Metro Cities opposes the diversion of such dedicated funds to help balance state budgets; • Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to be met, mandates to be funded, and that maintain our state's economic vitality and competitiveness; • Metro Cities supports the concept of performance measuring, but opposes using state established local performance measurements to determine the allocation of state aids to local governments, or to deny local governments the authority to establish their own budgets and levies, as such measurements do not well account for varying local needs and circumstances. 2013 Legislative Policies 1 Municipal Revenue &Taxation I 1-B Revenue Diversification Metro Cities supports a balanced and diversified revenue system that acknowledges the diversity in city characteristics, needs and.revenue capacities, and allows for greater stability in.revenues. The diminishment in state aids is creating severe challenges for many cities in the provision of public services and increased reliance on the property tax. Metro Cities supports greater access to other tax and revenue sources, and statutory modifications that allow cities to impose a local option sales tax for public improvements,without the need for special legislation. Metro Cities supports having local sales tax referendums conducted at a general or special election. The Legislature should recognize the equity considerations involved with local sales taxes, and continue to provide aids to cities that have high needs, overburdens and/or low fiscal capacity. 1-C Levy Limits Metro Cities strongly opposes levy limits. Levy limits undermine local budgeting processes, planned growth, and the relationship between locally elected officials and their residents by allowing the state to decide the appropriate level of local taxation and services, despite varying local conditions and circumstances. l 1-D Restrictions on Local Government Budgets Metro Cities opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations to the local government budget and taxing process. 1-E Budget and Financial Reporting Requirements State laws require cities to prepare and submit or publish numerous budget and financial reports. These requirements often add significant costs to cities, and many requirements often result in duplication. Any additional reporting requirements should be weighed to balance the need for additional information with the costs to cities of compiling and submitting this information. In light of the numerous existing reporting requirements, Metro Cities supports reducing the number of unnecessary mandated reporting requirements. 2013 Legislative Policies 2 Municipal Revenue &Taxation 1-F Local Government Aid (LGA) The LGA program, originally enacted in 1971, was created with the goals of providing property tax relief, and ensuring a sufficient level of revenues for local government needs. Metro Cities supports Local Government Aid (LGA), the only form of general purpose state aid to Minnesota cities, as a means of ensuring that all cities are able to provide basic public services without over-burdening the property tax. In response to the state's budget deficits, LGA has been continually reduced. These reductions have fallen disproportionately on metropolitan area communities. Overall, reductions to local government aids and credits have been greater on a percentage basis than reductions made to other areas of the state budget. The level of reductions and un- allotments and the unreliability of funding from year to year undermine the goals of the LGA program. Metro Cities strongly opposes the continued reductions of Local Government Aid for the purpose of balancing state budget deficits and opposes singling out specific communities for local aid reductions. Metro Cities also opposes freezes to LGA, which increase volatility in the distribution of LGA. Metro Cities supports the restoration of previous LGA cuts, adequate funding of the LGA program and the continuation of LGA to those cities whose public service needs and costs exceed their ability to pay. 1-G Local Government Aid Reform Metro Cities' supports an LGA program that allows cities across the state to provide public services at.relatively similar levels of taxation, and that serves the needs of cities across the state more equitably. Metro Cities' policies recognize that our state's prosperity and vitality depend significantly upon a healthy and vibrant metropolitan region, and supports changes to LGA to better address the needs of cities in the metropolitan area. The current LGA program does not adequately address the needs of many metropolitan communities. Changes to the LGA formula and diminished funding levels have altered the distribution of LGA, creating geographic inequities in the LGA program. The needs of many metropolitan communities,particularly older, fully developed suburbs, are inadequately addressed under the current LGA structure. These communities often have a mix of aging infrastructure, changing demographics, high service needs, below average tax capacities, restricted use of redevelopment tools, and reduced federal and state assistance to aid revitalization. A functional LGA program is one that helps to assure all 2013 Legislative Policies 3 I I Municipal Revenue &Taxation cities can provide and fund local public services and infrastructure, in order to position our state and metropolitan region for strong economic growth and vibrancy. Metro Cities supports the efforts of the LGA study groups to analyze and recommend reforms to the program.Metro Cities further supports having the groups consider the LGA program in the context of the overall state and local fiscal relationship. 1-H State Property Tax Relief Programs Metro Cities supports state funded property tax relief programs that are paid directly to homestead property taxpayers such as the circuit breaker and enhanced targeting for special circumstances. Metro Cities supports an analysis of the State's property tax relief programs to determine their effectiveness and equity in providing property tax relief to individuals and families across the state. Metro Cities supports the use of the Department of Revenue's "Voss" database to link income and property values, and the consideration of income relative to property taxes paid in determining eligibility for state property tax relief programs. 1-1 Property Valuation Limits/Limited Market Value p Metro Cities strongly opposes the use of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation purposes, since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of property and create disparities between properties of equal value. 1-J Homestead Market Value Exclusion Program In 2011,new state laws established a Market Value Homestead Exclusion Program, and repealed the Market Value Homestead Credit. the intent of both programs was to provide property tax relief to qualifying homesteads, the.former MVHC through credits on local government tax bills and the new MVHE through reductions in property tax values. Under the former MVHC, the state reimbursed local governments in exchange for reducing the taxable value of qualifying properties. The new program pays for the property tax relief by shifting property taxes within jurisdictions. Metro Cities opposed the former market value homestead credit structure, because the state failed to reimburse most local units of government for costs of the program,which resulted in unpredictable holes in those local government budgets or required those jurisdictions to shift the cost of the program across its property taxpayers. Similarly, because the credit structure is no longer in place and the state is no longer paying any portion of its property tax relief program, implementation of the new MVHE program in 2013 Legislative Policies 4 i i Municipal Revenue &Taxation 2012 forcibly shifted the property tax burden within local jurisdictions in the state and increased property taxes to pay for its costs. Metro Cities supports statutory changes to address issues that have been identified in the implementation of the program around levy limits based on market value, including those impacting economic development authorities and port authorities, as well as debt limits based on market value. These limits should be computed on the market value of the jurisdiction before the homestead market value exclusion is applied. Metro Cities opposes restoration of the former Market Value Homestead Credit, and encourages elimination of the new exclusion, as the program shifts taxes onto other property classes and further complicates the property tax system. 1-K Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution Metro Cities supports the Fiscal Disparities Program. Metro Cities opposes any diversion from the fiscal disparities_pool to fund specific programs or projects, as this would contradict the purposes of the program. The Twin Cities Area Fiscal Disparities Program, enacted in 1971, was created for the purposes of: • providing a way for local governments to share in the resources generated by the growth of the metropolitan area without removing existing resources; • to promote orderly development of the region by reducing the impact of fiscal considerations on the location of business and infrastructure; • to establish incentives for all parts of the area to work for the growth of the area as a whole; • to help communities at various:stages of,development; • to encourage protection of the environment by reducing the impact of fiscal considerations to ensure protection of parks, open space, and wetlands. The 2011 legislative study of Fiscal Disparities, which Metro Cities participated in and supported, has stimulated discussion of the program at the Legislature, and Metro Cities anticipates modifications to the program to be proposed in the 2013 legislative session. Legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program should only be considered within a framework of comprehensive reform efforts to the state's property tax, aids and credits system. Any proposed legislation that would modify or impact the fiscal disparities program must be evaluated utilizing the criteria of fairness, equity, stability, transparency and coherence in the treatment of cities and taxpayers across the metropolitan region, and must continue to serve the program's intended purposes. Further studies or task forces to consider modifications to the fiscal disparities program must include participation and input from metropolitan local government representatives. 2013 Legislative Policies 5 - i Municipal Revenue &Taxation 1-L Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits Metro Cities strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state. constitution. This would eliminate any flexibility on the part of the Legislature or local governments to respond to unanticipated critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating economic situations. When services such as education, public safety and health care require increased funding beyond the overall limit, experiences in at least one other state indicate that other publicly funded services receive less than adequate resources. Constitutional limits result in a reduced base during times of economic downturn and the inability to recover to previous service levels when economic prosperity returns. 1-M State Property Tax The 2001 Property Tax Reform Act shifted general education funding to the state, and funded it, in part, with a new state property tax on commercial/industrial and cabin property. The statute governing the state levy was subsequently amended so that the levy is no longer dedicated to education and the levy is automatically adjusted by the rate of inflation as measured by the implicit price deflator. Since cities' only source of general funds is the property tax, Metro Cities strongly opposes extension of a state-levied property tax to additional classes of property. Metro Cities supports efforts to have the state provide information on the property tax statement regarding the state property tax. i 1-N Class Rate Tax System Metro Cities opposes elimination of the class rate tax system, or applying future levy increases to market value, since this would further complicate the property tax system. 1-0 Regional Facility Host Communities Municipalities hosting regional facilities (such as utilities, landfills or aggregate mining) incur costs and community impacts such as environmental damage or lost economic development opportunities. Communities should be compensated for the impacts of these facilities,which provide benefits to the region and state. Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to offset the negative impacts of these facilities and activities on host communities. Metro Cities would prefer that cities and townships be allowed to collect a host fee that may be adjusted when state decisions impact those fees, 2013 Legislative Policies 6 Municipal Revenue &Taxation 1-P Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases State law currently requires local governments, with the exception of public schools, nursing homes, towns, hospitals and public libraries, to pay sales tax. The law exempts certain local government units from some specific purchases such as ambulance vehicles and equipment, road and bridge maintenance, emergency rescue vehicles, and others. Metro Cities supports a reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases, made by all local governments, since such charges represent a double tax upon our citizens. 1-Q City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance Metro Cities opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary to maintain fiscal viability,meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase capital goods and infrastructure, provide adequate cash_ flow and maintain high level bond ratings. 1-R Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) Metro Cities supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary contribution increases,the standard for the PERA General Plan, and a 60% employer/40% employee split, the standard for the PERA Police and Fire Plan. Metro Cities also supports state assistance to local governments to cover any additional contribution burdens placed on cities over and above contribution increases required by employees. Cities should receive sufficient notice of these increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting purposes. To help ensure the fiscal health of the PERA system, Metro Cities supported legislative changes made in 2010 that will begin to address funding deficiencies in the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plans. We oppose benefit improvements for active employees or retirees until the financial health.of the PERA General Plan and PERA Police and Fire Plan are restored. Metro Cities supports modifications to help align PERA contributions and costs, and reduce the need for additional contribution increases,including a modification of PERA eligibility guidelines to account for temporary, seasonal and part time employment situations, the use of pro-rated service credit, and a comprehensive review of exclusions to simplify eligibility guidelines.Further employer contribution rate increases should be avoided until other cost alignment mechanisms are considered. Metro Cities will monitor legislative proposals and plan design changes and, when necessary and appropriate, respond in a manner that supports this policy and provides for the fair treatment of employees and the protection of municipalities' interests. 2013 Legislative Policies 7 Municipal Revenue &Taxation I 1-S State Program Revenue Sources Metro Cities opposes any attempt by the state to finance programs of statewide value and significance with local revenue sources such as municipal utilities or property tax mechanisms. These local revenue sources are created to finance local government services. Statewide programs, such as the Clean Water Legacy Act, serve important state goals and objectives, and should be financed through traditional state revenue sources such as the income or sales tax. 1-T Post Employment Benefits Metro Cities supported 2008 statutory changes that allow local governments to establish trusts from which to fund post-employment health and life insurance benefits for public employees,with participation by cities on a strictly voluntary basis, in recognition that cities have differing local needs and circumstances. Cities should also retain the ability to determine the level of post employment benefits to be provided to employees. 1-U Health Care Insurance Programs Metro Cities supports legislative efforts to control health insurance costs, but opposes actions that undermine local flexibility to manage rising insurance costs. Metro Cities encourages a full examination of the rising costs of health care and the impacts on city employers and employees. Metro Cities also supports a study of the fiscal impacts to both cities and retirees of pooling retirees separately from active employees. I 1-V State Budget Stability f In recent years,the State has experienced increasingly substantial budget deficits and volatility in state revenues. To address state budget shortfalls, the Legislature and Governor have focused their efforts on reducing expenditures, shifting costs to other units of government, delaying school payments, and drawing down the state budget reserve. Many of these options will not be available to address future state budget shortfalls and the Legislature and Governor must seek solutions that achieve structural budget balance. In 2013,the state budget deficit is projected to be $1 billion. I� Metro Cities strongly supports changes to.the state's revenue system that enhance and improve stability, flexibility and adequacy in the system. Such changes should focus on reducing the volatility of state revenues and improving the long term balance of state revenues and expenditures. Metro Cities supports a statutory budget reserve minimum that is adequate to manage risks and fluctuations in the state's tax system and a cash flow reserve account of sufficient size so that the state can avoid short term borrowing to manage cash flow fluctuations. 2013 Legislative Policies 8 Municipal Revenue &Taxation Metro Cities also supports an examination of the property tax system and the relationships between state and local tax bases,with an emphasis on recent state budget cuts and their impact on property taxes. State budget deficits must be balanced with statewide sources and must not further reduce funding for property tax relief programs and aids to local governments that result in local governments bearing more responsibility for the costs of services that belong to the state. 1-W Online Travel Companies and Taxes Metro Cities opposes legislation that allows online travel companies a tax exemption that terminates obligations to pay hotel taxes to state and local governments, or otherwise restricts legal actions by states and localities. 1-X Taxation of Electronic Commerce Metro Cities supports efforts to develop streamlined sales and use tax system to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration by retailers and states. Metro Cities supports policies that encourage remote retailers to collect and remit state sales taxes in states that are complying with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. 2013 Legislative Policies 9 i i Municipal Revenue &Taxation 2013 Legislative Policies 10 i P° General Legislation (2 2-A Mandates, Zoning & Local Authority Metro Cities opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create mandated additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism. Metro Cities believes that zoning decisions should be made at the local level. Metro Cities supports legislation that gives local officials greater authority and discretion to approve variances in order to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs of their own community. New unfunded mandates potentially cause increased property taxes which impede cities' ability to fund traditional service needs. To allow for greater collaboration and flexibility in providing local services, Metro Cities also encourages the removal of barriers or hurdles to cooperation and coordination between cities and other units of government or entities. Metro Cities supports local decision-making authority. 2-13 City Enterprise Activities Creation of an enterprise operation allows a city to provide the desired service while maintaining financial and management control. The state should refrain from infringing on this ability to provide and control services for the benefit of community residents. Metro Cities supports cities having authority to establish city enterprise operations in response to community needs, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure residents' quality of life. 2-C Firearms on City Property Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns and other weapons in city-owned buildings, facilities and parks. This would allow locally elected officials to determine whether to allow permit-holders to bring guns into municipal buildings, liquor stores, city council chambers and city sponsored youth activities. It is not Metro Cities' intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking lots, on city streets, city sidewalks or on locally approved hunting land. Metro Cities supports local control to allow or prohibit handguns and other weapons on city owned property. 2012 Legislative Policies 11 General Legislation 2-D 911 Telephone Tax Public safety answering points (PSAPs)must be able to continue to rely on state 911 revenues to pay for upgrades and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and operational support, and dispatcher training: Metro Cities supports state funding for the technology and training needed to provide the number and location of wireless and voice over internet protocol(VOIP) calls to 911 on computer screens and transmit that data to police, fire and first responders. 2-E 800 MHz Radio System. Metro Cities urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to obtain required infrastructure and subscriber equipment(portable and mobile radios) as well as provide funding for operating costs, since the prime purpose of this system is to allow public safety agencies and other units of government the ability to communicate effectively. Metro Cities supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (previously the Metropolitan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800 MHz radio system, as long as cities are not forced to modify their current systems or become a part of the 800 MHz Radio System unless they so choose. 2-F Building Codes In-spite of the serious downturn in the construction economy, thousands of new housing units have been constructed annually in the metro area, and when the economy rebounds, building will resume. Structural and water intrusion problems have surfaced in many houses and commercial buildings built in the last 20 years. These problems have resulted in dissatisfied homeowners and conflicts between the state, builders and cities. Metro Cities supports an equitable distribution of fees from the Construction Code Fund,with proportional distribution based on the area of enforcement where the fees were received. Metro Cities further supports a joint effort by the state, cities and builders to collectively identify appropriate uses for the fund, including education, analysis of new materials and construction techniques,building code updating, building inspector training, development of performance standards and identification of construction "best practices." Metro Cities supports including the International Green Construction Code as an `optional appendix' to the State Building Code to allow cities to utilize appropriate parts of those guidelines in their communities. Metro Cities also supports adopting the international energy conservation code to the state building code without I 2013 Legislative Policies 12 General Legislation amendments. Metro Cities does.not support legislative solutions that fail to recognize the interrelationships between builders, state building codes and cities. i Metro Cities supports efforts to increase awareness of the potential impacts and benefits of requiring sprinklers in new homes and townhouses, and supports discussion and the dissemination of information around these impacts via the code adoption process through the Department of Labor and Industry. 2-G Administrative Fines Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with increasing costs to local units of government. The use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs. Metro Cities supported expansion of the 2009 administrative fine authority to allow cities to issue administrative fines for defined local traffic offenses. While the expanded authority is a welcome enhancement, further compromise language is necessary to enhance the workability of the authority. Metro Cities continues to support all cities' authority to use administrative fines for regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning codes,health codes, and public safety and nuisance ordinances. Metro Cities supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum,for regulatory matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher level state traffic and criminal offenses. Metro Cities also endorses a fair hearing process before a disinterested third party. 2-H Residential Care Facilities Sufficient funding and oversight is needed to ensure that residents living in residential care facilities have appropriate care and supervision, and that neighborhoods are not disproportionately impacted by high concentrations of residential care facilities. Under current law, operators of certain residential care facilities are not required to notify cities when they intend to purchase single-family housing for this purpose. Cities do not have the authority to regulate the locations of group homes and residential care facilities. Cities have reasonable concerns about high concentrations of these facilities in residential neighborhoods, and additional traffic and service deliveries surrounding these facilities when they are grouped closely together. Municipalities recognize and support the services residential care facilities provide. However, cities also have an interest in preserving balance between group homes and other uses in residential neighborhoods. Providers applying to operate residential care facilities should be required to notify the city when applying for licensure so as to be informed of local ordinance requirements as a part of the application process. Licensing agencies should be required to notify the city of properties receiving licensure to be operated as residential care facilities. 2013 Legislative Policies 13 j General Legislation Metro Cities supports statutory authority to require licensed agencies and licensed providers that operate residential care facilities to notify the city of properties being operated as residential care facilities. Metro Cities also supports the establishment of non-concentration standards,similar to those allowed for the core cities, for residential care facilities to prevent clustering and require the appropriate county agencies to enforce these rules. 2-1 Annexation A Municipal Boundary Adjustment Task Force, established in 2006, was charged with developing recommendations regarding best practices annexation training for city and township officials to better communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. The report from that task force was published in February of 2009. While the task force was able to define the differences between cities and townships on the issue of annexation, no significant advancements were made in creating best practices. Metro Cities supports continued legislative efforts to develop recommendations regarding best practices annexation training for city and township officials to better communicate and jointly plan potential annexations. Further, Metro Cities supports substantive changes to the state's annexation laws that will lead to better land-use planning, energy conservation, greater environmental protection,fairer tax bases, and fewer conflicts between townships and cities. Metro Cities also supports. technical annexation changes that have been agreed to by cities and townships. 2-J Housing Ordinance Enforcement In 2008,the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled in Morris v. Sax that certain provisions of the city of Morris' rental housing code were invalid because there were subjects dealt with under the state building code and the city was attempting to regulate these areas "differently from the state building code." Minnesota Statutes section 1613.6s subdivision 1 states: "The state building code applies statewide and supersedes the building code of any municipality. A municipality must not by ordinance or through development agreement require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any residential structure that are different from any provision of the state building code." Metro Cities supports the ability of cities to enforce all housing codes passed by a local municipality to maintain its housing stock. 2013 Legislative Policies 14 i General Legislation I 2-K Statewide Funding Sources for Local Issues with Regional Impact Many issues including, but not limited to,the implementation of a metropolitan area groundwater monitoring network, emerald ash borer eradication and the cleanup of storm-water retention ponds, come with significant local costs, and have impacts that reach beyond municipal boundaries. Metro Cities supports the availability of statewide funding sources to address local issues that have regional or statewide significance. Metro Cities opposes the requirement of enacting ordinances more restrictive than state law in exchange for access to these funds. 2-L Dangerous Substance Regulation In metropolitan regions where most cities share boundary lines with other cities, the banning of dangerous substances at the local level does not eliminate access to these products unless all cities take the same regulatory action. Under these circumstances, as evidenced by recent synthetic marijuana and analog drug situations, Metro Cities supports statewide regulation and prohibition of substances found to present a danger to anyone who uses them. 2-M Private Well Drilling Restriction Authority Cities are authorized to enact ordinances that disallow the placement of private wells within city limits to ensure both water safety and availability for residents and businesses. Municipal water systems are financially dependent upon users to operate and maintain the system. A loss of significant rate payers as a result of unregulated private well drilling would economically destabilize water systems and could lead to contamination of the water supply. Metro Cities supports current law authorizing cities to regulate and prohibit the placement of private wells within municipal utility service boundaries and opposes any attempt to remove or alter that authority. 2-N Organized Waste Collection Cities over 1,000 population are required by law to ensure all residents have solid waste collection available to them. A city can meet the statutory requirement by licensing haulers to operate in an open collection system, authorize city employees to collect waste, or implement organized collection through one or multiple haulers to increase efficiency, reduce truck traffic and control costs to residents. 2013 Legislative Policies 15 General Legislation Current law requires cities to follow a cumbersome and costly investigative process before enacting an organized collection ordinance. Further, requiring cities to adopt an intent to organize prior to investigating the merits of organized collection elevates tensions around the subject before a city begins the process. Metro Cities supports easing statutory requirements to allow cities to investigate the merits of organized collection without the pressure of a rigid timeline and requirement to pass `an intent to organize' at the beginning of the discussion process. Metro Cities opposes any legislation that would further increase the cost or further complicate the process cities are required to follow to organize its waste collection or prohibit cities from implementing or using organized waste collection. 2-0 Voter ID Implementation Costs Cities play a critical role in managing and ensuring the integrity of elections. In the event the photo ID constitutional amendment passes the-ballot in November 2012, the 2013 Legislature will be faced with the task of writing the conforming legislation necessary to implement the new requirement in a uniform way across the state, which will impact city electoral processes. Metro Cities strongly recommends that the Legislature pass necessary enacting legislation around the implementation of any voter ID requirements expediently in the 2013 legislative session to meet statutory election deadlines and ensure uniform elections in 2013 and beyond. Any changes made to election laws to implement a voter ID requirement should not place undue financial or administrative burdens on local governments. Any additional costs brought on by election law changes should be the responsibility of the state. i 2013 Legislative Policies 16 i Housin g & Economic Development (3)--_- Introduction While the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven activity, all levels of government—federal, state and local—have a role to play in facilitating the production and preservation of affordable housing in Minnesota. Metro Cities' housing policies recognize and support the intergovernmental nature of this issue—including participation from federal, state,regional and local governments, Cities are responsible for much of the ground-level housing policy in Minnesota—including land-use planning, building code enforcement, and often times the packaging of financial incentives. However,the State and Metropolitan Council must also play a major role by empowering local units of government and providing a variety of funding programs and tools. 3-A City Role in Housing In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market-driven activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via responsibilities in the areas of land-use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Many cities take on a significant administrative burden by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing programs and supporting either local or countywide Housing and Redevelopment Authorities. Cities are also responsible for ensuring the health and safety of local residents and the structural soundness and livability of the local housing stock via building permits and inspections. Metro Cities strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority to carry out these functions in a locally determined manner. 3-13 City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Metro Cities' supports both affordable housing and housing that is appropriate for people at all stages of life. A variety of housing opportunities are important to the economic and social well being of individual communities and the region. Cities can facilitate the production and preservation of affordable and lifecycle housing by: • Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs; • Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing neighborhoods; • Expediting review processes; 2012 Legislative Policies 17 i Housing & Economic Development • Working to reduce locally imposed development costs; and- 0 Using available regulatory mechanisms to shape housing communities. 3-C Inclusionary Housing Metro Cities supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed- use neighborhoods throughout a city. However, Metro Cities does not support passage of a mandatory inclusionary housing law that would require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be affordable to households at a particular income level because these units can't be produced without a deep developer subsidy or cross- subsidization from the other houses in the development. While Metro Cities believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory . reform, density bonuses, and fee waivers,Metro Cities does not believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve the desired levels of affordability solely through these steps. The Metropolitan Council, in creating its affordable housing need number,must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial assistance and/or advocating for additional resources through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. 3-1) Metropolitan Council Role in Housing The Metropolitan Council is statutorily required to assist cities with meeting the provisions of the Land Use Planning Act, which requires cities to adopt sufficient standards, plans and programs to meet their local share of the region's overall projected need for low and moderate income housing. The Council's responsibilities include the preparation and adoption of guidelines and procedures to assist local government units accomplish the requirements of the Land Use Planning Act. Unlike parks,transit and wastewater, housing is not defined by statute as a regional system, thus the Met Council's role,,responsibilities and authority are more limited in scope, centered on providing assistance to local governments by identifying the regional need for affordable housing, projecting growth for the region, and identifying available tools,resources and methods that cities can use to create and promote affordable housing opportunities in their communities. The Metropolitan Council also offers a variety of programs and initiatives to create affordable housing opportunities, including the Livable Communities Program, and operation of a metropolitan housing and redevelopment authority. 2013 Legislative Policies 18 I Housing & Economic Development 3-E Allocation of Affordable Housing Need In 2006, the Metropolitan Council created a.methodology to determine how many affordable housing units would be needed and where those units should go. From that process, each metro area city was assigned an affordable housing need number. Further, Met Council Comprehensive Plan guidance instructs cities to guide sufficient land to accommodate their share of the region's affordable housing need. Metro Cities supports the creation of a variety of housing opportunities. However,the provision of affordable and lifecycle housing is a shared responsibility between the private sector and government at all levels, including the federal government, state government and Metropolitan Council. Land economics, construction costs and infrastructure needs create barriers to the creation of affordable housing that cities cannot overcome without assistance. Therefore,Metro Cities supports a Metropolitan Council affordable housing policy that recognizes the following tenets: • The Council's housing policies characterize individual city housing numbers as a range of needs in the community. , • Cities need significant financial assistance from the federal and state government, as well as the Metropolitan Council, in order to make progress toward creating additional affordable housing; • Metropolitan Council planning and policies around transit and affordable housing must be more closely aligned to help ensure that transit resources are available so that communities can meet affordable housing need allocations; • Absent significant resources to assist cities, the Met Council will not hold cities responsible if a city cannot meet its affordable housing need number and the Met Council will reassess biennially the range of needs to recognize the deficiency; • The formula, and the methodology used to create the range of need and allocations by community need to be re-evaluated at this time, and should be routinely evaluated to determine if market conditions have changed or if underlying conditions should prompt readjustment of the formula; • The Council should use a methodology that incorporates data accumulated by individual cities, and not limited to census driven growth projections; • The formula should be adjusted to better reflect the balance and breadth of existing affordable housing stocks; and II 2013 Legislative Policies 19 Housing & Economic Development • The Council should engage in a "post project analysis in order to measure the effectiveness of that project. 3-F State Role in Affordable Housing Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency(MHFA) and the Department of Employee and Economic Development(DEED), the state establishes general direction and prioritization of housing issues. The state financially supports a variety of housing types including homeless shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, senior housing, and family housing. The state must continue to be an active partner in addressing lifecycle and affordable housing issues. Metro Cities supports: • Increased funding, including state general funds and, possibly, alternate sources of revenue, for programs that support lifecycle, affordable housing,foreclosure mitigation, senior, transitional and emergency housing. The state should consider establishing a non-competitive program to create a pipeline to match city-subsidized affordable housing projects; • Housing programs that assist housing development throughout the low-to- moderate income range; • Housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in census blocks with emerging or high concentrations of poverty,where the private market might not otherwise invest as a means of reconciling affordable housing with community development goals. Continuing the policy of using the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's investment earnings for housing programs; • City input into state legislation involving distribution of tax credits and tax exempt bonding; • Exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the development and production of affordable housing; • Consideration of providing state tax credits to leverage cross-subsidized affordable units in a market rate development project. This incentive could be used in conjunction with city, regional, or other state incentives; and • Consideration of the use of state bond proceeds and other appropriations for land banking,land trusts, and rehabilitation and construction of affordable housing. 2013 Legislative Policies 20 Housing & Economic Development • Homeownership counseling services, including pre-purchasing counseling, in order to help reduce foreclosures by informing homeowners and potential homeowners of their rights, options, and costs associated with owning a home. • An affordable housing tax credit to help spur construction and secure additional private investment. • Eliminating the sunset date on municipal authority to establish a housing improvement area (HIA). 3-G Federal Role in Affordable and Workforce Housing Metro Cities encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels of funding for affordable and workforce housing. Federal investment in affordable and workforce housing will increase the supply of affordable and life cycle housing as well as increase the inter jurisdictional collaboration between the two levels of government. Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to maintain and increase affordable and workforce housing throughout the state. Providing working families access to housing is an important piece to the economic vitality of the region. Metro Cities strongly encourages the following: • To preserve and increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program and the federal HOME program,which are catalysts for creating more affordable housing; • To create and implement a more streamlined procedural method for local units of government to participate and access federal funding and services dealing with grants, loans, and tax incentive programs for economic and community development efforts; • To preserve resources to sustain existing public housing throughout the Metro Area; i • To commit resources to Section 8 funding.It is a flexible, cost effective, and successful program that has helped nearly two million families nationally find housing through promotion of self-sufficiency and stability; and • To support federal funding to provide short-term assistance for HRAs in order to facilitate the sale of tax-exempt bonds. i 2013 Legislative Policies 21 i i Housing & Economic Development 3-H Vacant, Boarded, and Foreclosed Properties and Properties at Risk There has been an epidemic of mortgage foreclosures in the state, and the number of foreclosures continues to increase as more homeowners cannot afford to pay their existing mortgages, and as many homeowners find themselves "underwater"in their mortgages, with the-result that some homeowners are choosing to walk away from their homes rather than paying more than the home's value. As the economy continues to be challenged, and recovery is expected to be slow, foreclosure levels are expected to continue over the next couple of years. While mortgage foreclosures are responsible for a significant portion of vacant and boarded properties,they are not the only cause.Abandoned residential and commercial properties can be devastating to communities when the presence of vacant buildings results in reduced property values and increased crime. The additional public safety and code enforcement costs of managing vacant properties are a financial strain on cities. Metro Cities supports solutions to vacant and boarded properties that recognize three things: (1) Prevention is more cost effective than a cure. (2) The causes of this . problem are many and varied,thus the solutions must be as well. (3)It is not simply a "city"problem so cities must not be expected to bear the bulk of the burden of mitigation. Further, Metro Cities supports some specific proposals: • Improvement of the redemption process to provide increased notification to renters, strengthen the ability of homeowners to retain their properties, and reduce the amount of time a property is vacant; • Expedition of the tax forfeiture process; • Improve the cost assignment process to ensure that cities can recoup their costs of managing vacant properties; • Improve ability of cities to recoup the increased public safety and enforcement costs related to vacant properties; • Increase financial tools for neighborhood recovery efforts, including tax increment financing; • Allowing cities to acquire vacant and boarded properties before deterioration and vandalism result in unsalvageable structures; including providing financial tools such as increasing eminent domain flexibility; • Registration of vacant and boarded properties; I 2013 Legislative Policies 22 Housing & Economic Development • Year-round notification by utility companies of properties not receiving utility service. 3-1 Economic Development and Redevelopment The economic viability of the Metro Area is enhanced by a broad array of economic development tools that create infrastructure, recycle previously developed property, provide incentives for business development and support technological advances. It should be the goal of the State to champion development by providing enough sustainable funding to assure competitiveness in a global marketplace. The State of Minnesota should recognize cities as the primary unit of government responsible for the implementation of economic development, redevelopment policies and land use controls. State assistance to cities for development is required-in two broad areas: (1)Economic Development—direct business assistance; and(2) Redevelopment/Development—real estate development. They are not mutually exclusive—some projects require a boost on both counts. 3-1 (1) Economic Development For purposes of this section, economic development is defined as a form of development that contains direct business assistance with the goal of sustainable job creation,job retention or to nurture new or retain existing industry in the state. The measure of return on investment of public business subsidies should include the impact (positive or negative) of"spin-off development" or business development that is ancillary and supportive of the primary business. Metro Cities supports: • Continued competitive funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund; • Continued funding for the Urban Initiative Program and other state programs to support minority business start-ups. • Continued support for the Bioscience partnerships between cities, companies and University of Minnesota; • Development of green opportunities for green job development and related innovation and entrepreneurship; • Economic tools that facilitate job growth without relying solely on the growth of property tax base; • The Regional Competitiveness Project, a collaboration of the Regional Council of Mayors and the Business and Workforce investment Boards (DEED)with the 2013 Legislative Policies 23 Housing & Economic Development goal of implementing a regional economic and workforce development competitiveness strategy for short and long-term economic growth • The Itasca Project, an employer led project to drive regional efforts to keep the Twin Cities economy and quality of life competitive with other regions; and • The Metro Business Plan initiative, a pilot project designed to highlight the emergence of metropolitan areas as a dominant source of economic and cultural power in modern America. • Greater MSP, a region-wide, private-public partnership whose mission is to stimulate economic growth in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region; • Funding"QED's," the Qualified Economic Development Lender loan guarantee program; • Small business financing tools,such as a state new markets tax credit program, mirrored on the federal program,which provides capital for business; and i • Tools,such as tax incentives, to attract and retain data centers and other IT facilities. 3-1 (2) Redevelopment Redevelopment involves the development of land that requires "predevelopment."The goal of redevelopment is to facilitate the development of"pre-used" land, thereby i leveling the playing field between green field and brown field sites so that a private sector entity can rationally choose to locate on land that has already been used. The benefits of redevelopment include a decrease in Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMTs),more efficient use of new or existing public infrastructure(including public transit), ameliorated city costs due to public safety and code enforcement, and other public goods that result when land is reused rather than abandoned and compact development is encouraged. Metro Cities supports: • Increased funding and flexibility in the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Programs. Metro Cities strongly opposes funding reductions, transfers of Livable Communities Program funds to other program areas and constraints on eligibility and program requirements. Metro Cities supports allowing a maximum levy amount for this program, as provided for under Minnesota Statutes; • Increased, flexible and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup and Investigation Grant Program, administered by DEED; 2013 Legislative Policies 24 i Housing & Economic Development i • New financing and regulatory tools to nurture Transit Oriented Development, including funding for Transit Improvement Areas (TIAS) as defined in state statute, as well as increased flexibility iri the use of TIF for this purpose; • Increased and sustained general fund,and state bond funds for the Redevelopment Grant Program, administered by DEED, dedicated to Metropolitan Area projects. • The evaluation of SAC fees to determine if they hinder redevelopment; • Allowing for cities to "bank" SAC credits to use elsewhere within city; • Expansion of existing tools or development of new funding mechanisms to correct unstable soils; and • Extension of the sunset of the state income tax credit for preservation of historic properties. • Innovative Business Development Public Infrastructure grants. 3-J Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing (TIF)has been and continues to be the primary tool available for local communities to assist economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over time, several statutory changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use, while recent property tax reform has resulted in a decreased state financial stake in city TIF decisions. At the same time that TIF has become more restrictive and difficult to use, federal and state development and redevelopment resources have been steadily shrinking. The 2006 eminent domain changes will make redevelopment significantly more expensive in some cases, and impossible in others. The cumulative impact of TIF restrictions, shrinking federal and state redevelopment resources, and changes to eminent domain laws will restrict a city's ability to address problem properties and will accelerate the decline of developed cities in the Metropolitan Area. With huge state and federal budget deficits, the only source of revenue available to accomplish the scope of redevelopment necessary is the value created by the redevelopment itself, or the "increment." Without the use of the increment development will either not occurs or is unlikely to be optimal. Metro Cities urges the Legislature to: • Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain or directly or indirectly reduce the effectiveness of TIF; 2013 Legislative Policies 25 I i I Housing & Economic Development • Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District criteria so that a Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated parcels in addition to railroad property; • Expand the flexibility of TIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects; • Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects; • Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and if warranted provide cities with additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls. •- Allow for the creation of transit zones and transit related TIF districts in order to shape development and related improvements around transit stations but not require the use of TIF districts to fund the construction or maintenance of the public transit line itself unless a local community chooses to do so. • Allow TIF eligibility expansion to innovative technological products, recognizing that not only physical items create economic value; • Support changes to TIF law that will facilitate the development of"regional projects:" • Shift TIF redevelopment policy away from.a focus on "blight" and "substandard" to "functionally obsolete" or a focus on long range planning for a particular community, reduction in green house gases or other criteria more relevant to current needs. • Encourage DEED to do an extensive cost-benefit analysis related to redevelopment,including an analysis of the various funding mechanisms, and an analysis of where the cost burden falls with each of the options compared the to the distribution of the benefits of the redevelopment project. • Support TIF for neighborhood recovery efforts in the wake of the foreclosure crisis; • Consider creating an inter-disciplinary TIF team to review local exception TIF proposals, using established criteria, and make recommendations to the legislature on their passage; and • Metro Cities encourages the State Auditor to continue to work toward a more efficient and streamlined reporting process. • Clarifying use of TIF when a sale occurs after the closing of a district 2013 Legislative Policies 26 i Housing & Economic Development • Enacting statutory revisions to allow adjustments to original net tax capacity calculations to reflect the new homestead market value exclusion. The new homestead market value exclusion will have a negative impact on certain housing TIF districts. The TIF statutes, Minn. Stat. § 469.177,provides for adjustments in a district's original net tax capacity to reflect the conversion of a taxable property to tax exempt status and also provides for adjustments to reflect changes in property classifications enacted by the legislature. However, the TIF statute does not address tax base changes as a result of the new homestead market value exclusion. Consequently, the current value of a district will be reduced by the exclusion but the original net tax capacity will not be adjusted and increment available to the district'Will decline; • Revise substandard building test to simplify, resolve ambiguities, and reduce continued threat of litigation; • Amend TIF statute to address, through extending districts or other mechanisms, shortfalls related to declining market values during economic crises. 3-K Eminent Domain Eminent domain law changes made by the 2006 Legislature resulted in a significant philosophical and legal shift in Minnesota. Whereas prior to 2006, Minnesota law provided extensive deference to local governments, statutory changes enacted in 2006 provide significantly greater deference to property owners. Eminent domain actions for traditional public uses such as streets,parks or sewers will cost more. And except for the most extreme cases of blight or contamination, eminent domain for redevelopment purposes will be nearly impossible at any cost. The proper operation and long term economic vitality of our cities is dependent on the ability of a city, its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent. Reinvestment and reinvention strategies can occasionally conflict with the priorities of individual residents or business owners. Eminent domain is a critical tool in the reinvestment and reinvention process and without it; our cities may deteriorate to unprecedented levels before the public reacts. Metro Cities strongly encourages the Governor and Legislature to revisit the 2006 eminent domain changes to allow local governments to address redevelopment problems before those conditions become financially impossible to address. Specifically,the Legislature should: • Clarify contamination standards; • Develop different standards for redevelopment to include obsolete structures or to reflect the deterioration conditions that currently exist in the Metro Area; • Allow for the assembly of multiple parcels for redevelopment projects; 2013 Legislative Policies 27 i Housing & Economic Development • Provide for the ability to acquire land from "holdouts"who will now view a publicly funded project as an opportunity for personal gain at taxpayer expense; i.e. allow for negotiation using balanced appraisals for fair relocation costs; • Modify the public purpose definition under Chapter 117 to allow cities to more expediently address properties that are vacant or abandoned in areas with high levels of foreclosures, so as to address neighborhood stabilization and recovery. • Allow for relocation costs not to be paid if the city and property owner agree to a sale contract. 3-L This Old House/This Old Shop Metro Cities supports the reenactment of the"This Old House" law, which allowed owners of older homestead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements to the home. In particular, "This Old House", or a similar program, should be reauthorized as an incentive for re-occupying and homesteading foreclosed or vacant homes. Metro Cities also supports passage of similar legislation for owners of older commercial/industrial property that make improvements that increase the property's market value by at least 12%. 3-M Business Incentives Policy Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the Business Subsidy Act but should look to technical changes that would streamline both state and local processes and procedures. The legislature should distinguish between development incentives and redevelopment activities. In addition, in order to ensure cohesive and comprehensive regulations, the legislature should limit regulation of business incentives to the Business Subsidy Act. Metro Cities supports additional legislation that includes tools to help enhance and facilitate economic development and job creation. i 3-N Internet Technology Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs and availability of traditional infrastructure—roads, rail, utilities, etc.—the new economy is increasingly dependent on reliable, redundant, cost effective, high bandwidth telecommunications capabilities. While the United States was once a leader among "wired"economies, its position has slipped dramatically as other countries have 2013 Legislative Policies 28 Housing & Economic Development facilitated investments in fiber-optic deployment (fiber to the premises), commitments to true high speed internet capacity(100 mb to 1 gb) and improved networks (Internet 2). Recognizing that there is a policy debate regarding the role of government versus private telecommunications companies in implementing the next generation of internet capability, bringing about such capabilities is increasingly important to ensure that U.S. companies in general and Minnesota companies in particular can compete effectively in the global economy. Metro Cities endorses comprehensive and regional strategies to stimulate the implementation of high speed, reliable and cost effective internet service that is available throughout the state. Further,Metro Cities supports the repeal of Minnesota Statute 237.19. Metro Cities opposes the adoption of state policies that further restrict a city's ability to fund internet infrastructure. 3-0 City Role in Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development Historically, cities have played a major role in environmental protection, particularly in water quality. Through the construction and operation of wastewater treatment and storm water management systems, cities are a leader in protecting the surface water of the state. In recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on protecting ground water and removing impairments from storm water. In addition,there is increased emphasis on city participation in controlling our carbon footprint and in promoting green development. Metro Cities supports public and private environmental protection efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to further protect surface and ground water. Metro Cities also supports "green" design and construction techniques to the extent that those techniques have been thoroughly tested and are truly environmentally beneficial, economically sustainable, and represent sound building practices. Metro Cities supports additional, feasible environmental protection with adequate funding and incentives to comply. Green jobs represent employment and entrepreneurial opportunities that are part of the green economy, as defined in Minnesota statue 116.437J1, including the four industry sectors of green products,renewable energy, green services and environmental conservation. Minnesota's green jobs policies, strategies and investments need to lead to high quality jobs with good wages and benefits, meeting current wage and labor laws. 3-P Impaired Waters Metro Cities supports continued development of the metropolitan area in a manner that is responsive to the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and metro area. Since all types of properties are required to pay storm water fees, Metro Cities opposes entity-specific exemptions from these fees. Metro Cities supports the goals of the Clean Water Act and efforts at both the federal and state 2013 Legislative Policies 29 i Mousing & Economic Development level to implement it. Metro Cities supports continued funding of the framework passed in the 2009 Legacy legislation for clean water to improve the region's ability to respond to market demands for development and redevelopment, including dedicated funding for surface water impairment assessments, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, storm water construction grants and wastewater construction grants. Local units of government should not bear undue cost burdens associated with completed TMDL reports. As recent TMDL reports show, non-point agricultural sources are producing more run off pollution than urban areas at a rate of 13:1. Cities must not be required as primary entities for funding the clean-up and protection of state and regional water resources. Benefits of efforts must be proportional to the costs incurred and agricultural sources must be held responsible for their share of costs. i I i 2013 Legislative Policies 30 Metro olitan Agencies p 4-A Goals and Principles for Regional Governance The Twin Cities metropolitan region is home to the majority of our state's population and businesses and is poised for significant growth in the next two decades. At the same time; our metropolitan region faces significant challenges-and opportunities. The responses to these opportunities and challenges will determine the future success of the region and its competitiveness in our state, national and world economies. i The Metropolitan Council was created to manage the growth of the metropolitan region, and cities are responsible for adhering to regional plans as they plan for local growth and service delivery. The region's cities are the Metropolitan Council's primary constituency,with regional and local growth being primarily managed through city comprehensive planning and implementation, and the delivery of a wide range of public services. To function successfully,the Metropolitan Council must be accountable to and work in collaboration with city governments. The role of the Metropolitan Council is to set broad regional goals and to provide cities with technical assistance and incentives to achieve those goals. City governments are responsible and best suited to provide local zoning, land use planning, development and service delivery. Any additional roles or responsibilities for the Metropolitan Council should be limited to specific statutory assignments or grants or authorization, and should not usurp or conflict with local roles or processes,unless such changes have the consent of the region's cities. • Metro Cities supports an economically strong and vibrant region, and the effective, efficient and equitable provision of regional infrastructure, services and planning throughout the metropolitan area. • Metro Cities supports the provision of approved regional systems and planning that can be provided more effectively, efficiently or equitably on a regional level than at the local level by individual local units of government. • The Metropolitan Council must involve cities in the delivery of regional services and planning and be responsive to local perspectives on regional issues, and be required to provide opportunities for city participation on Council advisory committees and task forces. 2013 Legislative Policies 31 Metropolitan Agencies 4-13 Regional Governance Structure Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members by the Governor with four year, staggered terms for members. The appointment of the Metropolitan Council Chair should coincide with the term of the Governor. Metro Cities supports a nominating committee process that maximizes participation and input by local officials. Consideration should be given to the creation of four separate nominating committees, with committee representation from each quadrant of the region. Members of each committee should include three city officials, appointed by Metro Cities, one county commissioner appointed by the Association of MN Counties or a comparable entity, and three citizens appointed by the Governor. At least three of the local officials should be elected officials. The Governor must be required to appoint from the list of recommendations provided by the nominating committee,barring extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances that would prevent adherence to the recommendations,any reasons for which should be provided to the committee in writing, and be made part of the public record. Metro Cities supports the appointment of Metropolitan Council members who have demonstrated the ability to work with cities in a collaborative manner, and who understand the diversity and the commonalities of the region, and the long-term implications of regional decision-making. 4-C Comprehensive Analysis of Metropolitan Council Our region will continue to expand while simultaneously facing significant challenges around the effective, efficient and equitable provision of resources and infrastructure, Metro Cities believes that a comprehensive analysis of the Metropolitan Council is timely and appropriate,to assure that the region is equipped to address the future needs of a rapidly changing and growing metropolitan region. Metro Cities supports an objective, forward thinking analysis of the Metropolitan Council that includes the Council's authority, activities,services, and its geographical jurisdiction, and includes analysis of whether the Council is positioned to be effective in the coming decades. 4-D Oversight of Metropolitan Council Metro Cities supports the bi-partisan Legislative Commission on Metropolitan Government, or another entity,to monitor and review the Metropolitan Council's activities and to provide transparency and accountability of the Metropolitan Council operations and functions. 2013 Legislative Policies 32 Metropolitan Agencies The Metropolitan Council should examine its scope of services to determine their benefit and efficiency, and be open to alternative methods of delivery to assure that services are provided at high levels of effectiveness for the region. 4-E Fundin g Regional ional Services The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combination of user fees, propert y taxes, and state and federal grants. The Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices and public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports effective and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for sufficient reserves to ensure long-term service and fee stability. Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are collected. Metro Cities supports the use of property faxes and user fees to fund regional projects so long as the benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to the benefit cities receive in return. 4-F Regional Systems Regional systems are statutorily defined as transportation, aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's authority over them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the reach of any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change. The system plans prepared by the Metropolitan Council for the regional systems should be specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consideration in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. Metro Cities supports additional regional systems only if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the four existing regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established regional or state funding, source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be established. Any proposed additional regional system must have an established regional or state funding source. 2013 Legislative Policies 33 i Metropolitan Agencies 4-G Review of Local Comprehensive Plans In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan i Council should: • Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the four system plans; • Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan amendments and development applications; i • Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for I substantial impact on systems plans; • Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not prescribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act(LUPA); • Work in a cooperative and timely manner toward the resolution of outstanding issues. When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems.plans, Metro Cities supports a formal appeals process that includes a peer review. Metro Cities opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans or the plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city has made legitimate efforts to meet Met Council requirements. • Work with affected cities and other organizations such as the Pollution Control Agency,Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health and other stakeholders to identify common ground and resolve conflicts between respective goals for flexible residential development and achieving consistency with the Council's system plans and policies. • Require entities, such as private businesses, non profits, or local units of government, among others, whose actions could adversely affect a comprehensive plan, to be subject to the same qualifications and/or regulations as the.city. 4-H Comprehensive Planning Process Metro Cities supports an examination of the comprehensive planning process to make sure that the process is streamlined and efficient, so as to assist in alleviating excessive cost burdens or duplicative or unnecessary planning requirements by municipalities in the comprehensive planning process. Metro Cities supports resources to assist cities in meeting regional goals as part of the comprehensive planning process. 2013 Legislative Policies 34 i Metropolitan Agencies 4-1 Comprehensive Planning Schedule. Cities are required to submit comprehensive plan updates to the Metropolitan Council every 10 years,the most recent of which was due in 2008. A city's comprehensive plan represents a community's vision of how the city should grow and develop or redevelop, ensure adequate housing, provide essential public infrastructure and services,protect natural areas and meet other community objectives. Metro Cities recognizes that the merit of aligning comprehensive plan timelines with the release of census data. However,the comprehensive plan process is expensive, time consuming and labor intensive for cities, and the timing for the submission of comprehensive plans should not be altered solely to better align with census data. If sufficient valid reasons exist for the schedule for the next round of comprehensive plans to be changed or expedited, cities_ should be provided with financial resources to assist them in preparing the next round of plans. Metro Cities opposes cities being forced into a state of perpetual planning as a result of regional and legislative actions. Should changes be made to the comprehensive planning schedule, Metro Cities supports financial and other resources to assist cities in preparing and incorporating policy changes in their local planning efforts. Metro Cities supports a 10-year time frame for comprehensive plan submissions. 4-J Local Zoning Authority Local governments are responsible for zoning and local officials should have full authority to approve variances to remain flexible in response to the unique land use needs of their own community. Local zoning decisions, and the implementation of cities' comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council or any other governmental agency. Metro Cities supports local authority over land use and zoning decisions, and opposes the creation of non-local appeals boards with the authority to supersede city zoning decisions. 4-K Regional Growth The most recent regional population forecasts projects a population of 3,743,000 people by 2040. Metro Cities recognizes cities' responsibility to plan for sustainable growth patterns that integrate transportation, housing,parks, open space and economic development that will result in a region better equipped to,manage population growth, to provide a high quality 2013 Legislative Policies 35 I Metropolitan Agencies of life for a growing and increasingly diverse metropolitan area population and improved environmental health. In developing local comprehensive plans to fit within a regional framework, adequate state and regional financial resources and incentives, and maximum flexibility around local planning decisions, are imperative. The regional framework should assist cities in managing growth while being responsive to the individual qualities, characteristics and needs of metropolitan cities, and should encourage sub-regional cooperation and coordination. In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life: • Natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment; • Significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; • New households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second-ring suburbs, and developing cities through both development and redevelopment. In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies: • The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources,particularly in the areas of transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council. • The Metropolitan Council and Legislature must work to pursue levels of state and federal transportation funding that are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit needs in the metropolitan area. • The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to work with cities in a collaborative, incentives-based manner. • Metropolitan counties, adjacent counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due to the critical importance of facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in accommodating forecasted growth. • Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the"true"metropolitan region extends beyond the traditional seven-county area and the need to work collaboratively with adjacent counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. The region faces environmental,transportation, and land-use issues that cannot be solved by the seven-county metro area alone. Metro Cities supports an 2013 Legislative Policies 36 it I Metropolitan Agencies analysis to determine the impacts of Metropolitan Council's growth management policies and infrastructure investments on the growth and development of the collar counties, and the impacts of growth in the collar counties on the metropolitan area. 4-L Natural Resource Protection Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. The state and region play significant roles in the protection of natural. resources. Any steps taken by the state or Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must recognize that: • The protection of natural resources is significant to a multi-county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state's population and a travel destination for many more. Given the limited availability of resources and the artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting these resources. • The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI/A) is not a regional system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act. • The protection of natural resources should be balanced with the need to accommodate growth and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and provide transportation and transit connections. • Decisions about the zoning or land-use designations either within or outside a public park, nature preserve or other protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of government i Metro Cities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. Metro Cities urges the Legislature and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial assistance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources. 4-M Inflow and Infiltration (1/1) The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Plan established an I/I surcharge in 2007 on cities that are determined by MCES to be contributing unacceptable 2013 Legislative Policies 37 1 �,I i Metropolitan Agencies amounts of storm water to the MCES wastewater treatment system. Since the inception of the surcharge program, 50 cities have been identified as excessive I/I contributors. This number is subject to change, depending on rain events, and any city in the metropolitan area could be affected. While Metro Cities recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because it affects the size, and therefore the cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive 1/I in one city can affect development capacity of another,we are concerned about the potential for cities to incur increasingly exorbitant costs, and decreasing benefits, in their on-going efforts to mitigate excessive 1/I. Metro Cities supported the recommendations of the 2010 I/I Demand Charge Task Force for a second phase, on-going surcharge program to address I/I mitigation in the region. Metro Cities further supports adjustments to the flow methodology used to measure excess I/I that allow for the normalizing of precipitation variability. Metro Cities also encourages the Council to work with cities on community-specific issues that fall outside the scope of the task force report and recommendations. Metro Cities continues to monitor the surcharge program, and encourages the Metropolitan Council to support state financial assistance for Metro Area Ll mitigation through future Clean Water Legacy Act appropriations or similar legislation. Metro Cities supports continued state capital assistance to provide grants to metro area cities for the purpose of mitigating inflow and infiltration problems into municipal wastewater collection systems. 4-N Water Supply The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out planning activities to address the water supply needs of the Metro Area, and to establish a Water Supply Advisory Committee. Its work includes analyzing technical water supply/use data, the development of a master metro area water supply plan, recommendations for clarifying roles of local, regional and state governments and streamlining and consolidating approval processes, and recommendations for funding future planning and capital investments. The Master Water Supply Plan now in place serves as a framework for assisting and guiding communities in their water supply planning, without usurping local decision making processes. As the plan is implemented, many cities will conduct their own analyses for use in water supply planning. Local studies should be given equal weight in regional water supply planning. In addition to the Metropolitan Council,there are currently at least five state agencies with water related jurisdiction. There are also several federal agencies involved in water 2013 Legislative Policies 38 Metropolitan Agencies issues. Metro Cities encourages the Metropolitan Council to consider the inter- relationships of wastewater treatment, storm water management and water supply. Any state and regional regulations and processes should be clearly stated in the Water Supply Plan. Further, regional monitoring and data collection benefits should be borne as shared expenses between the regional and local units of government. The 2010 Legislature expanded the membership of the Advisory Committee to include four officials from the collar counties, and extended the Advisory Committee to December, 2012. The extension of the committee, which includes five metro area municipal officials, will allow the committee to continue to play a strong role in the development and direction of water supply planning-activities as the Master Plan is further developed and refined with additional information and data as they become available. Metro Cities opposes the insertion of the Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena. Metro Cities further opposes the elevation of water supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. At this time,we oppose any regional taxes or fees for water supply planning. Metro Cities supports efforts to clarify local, regional and state water supply roles, and on-going analytical work to streamline and consolidate the myriad and often conflicting water supply permitting processes. Metro Cities supports efforts to identify capital funding sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. 4-0 Service Availability Charge (SAC) Metro Cities supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, simplification and lower rates. The Met Council adopted changes to its SAC program that were implemented in January, 2010. Under the new changes, when a redeveloping property's new use requires lower wastewater capacity than what was used in the prior seven years, SAC credits are limited to the amount needed on the site for the new use. A property developing at the same or lesser wastewater demand will not incur SAC nor get credits. Because of the economic recession, SAC revenues have declined in recent years. In response,the Metropolitan Council sought and received legislative authority in 2010 to allow for a temporary reduction in the amount SAC annually pays for debt service and to shift some of the cost to the municipal wastewater charge. Metro Cities argued successfully for a `shift back' mechanism and sunset provision in the bill to make sure the new law was not overly permissive. SAC receipts have increased, but are still underperforming relative to projections. 2013 Legislative Policies 39 Metropolitan-Agencies Metro Cities supports a "growth pays for growth" approach to SAC. This policy was adopted by the Met Council but requires a statutory change. Metro Cities supports flexibility with regard to the timing of the sunset of the SAC shift, and ongoing efforts by the Metropolitan Council,with input from municipalities,to assure the long term sustainability and efficacy of the SAC program and the regional wastewater system, including a comprehensive and long range study of the overall SAC program and structure. Metro Cities supports a review of MCES' customer service policies, to ensure that its processes are responsive and transparent to communities, businesses and residents. Metro Cities supports additional outreach by MCES to users of the SAC program to promote knowledge and understanding of SAC charges and policies. 4-P Funding Regional Parks & Open Space In the seven-county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve as state parks, and the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improvement of these parks. State funding apart from Legacy funds should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks. Legacy funds for parks and trails should be balanced between metro and greater Minnesota. 4-Q Livable Communities The Livable Communities Act(LCA)is operated by the Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary, incentive-based approach to affordable housing development, brown field clean up and mixed-use, transit-friendly development and redevelopment. Metro Cities strongly supports the continuation of this approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities. Since its inception in 1995,the LCA program has generated billions of dollars of private and public investment, created thousands of jobs and added thousands of affordable housing units in the region. Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the program. Remaining interest earnings not used for program administration should be considered part of the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to established funding criteria. Metro Cities supports statutory changes to assure that all metropolitan area cities are eligible to participate in the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA). Metro Cities supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the LCDA in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively 2013 Legislative Policies 40 Metropolitan Agencies market driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support important development and redevelopment goals. Metro Cities opposes changes to the LCDA program that constrain flexibility around statutory goals, program requirements and criteria. Metro Cities opposes funding reductions to the Livable Communities Program and the transfer or use of these funds for purposes outside of the LCA program. Metro Cities supports statutory modifications in the LCDA to reflect the linkages among the goals, municipal objectives, and Met Council system objectives. Metro Cities supports the use of LCA.funds for projects in transit improvement areas, as defined in statute, as long as funding levels for general LCA programs are adequate to meet program goals and the program remains accessible to participating communities. 4-R Density Any Met Council density policy must take into account the impacts of market trends on city development and redevelopment activities. Metro Cities supports a reasonable Met Council density policy that bases density projections on actual development patterns, is flexible, and accommodates cities at various development stages. 2013 Legislative Policies 41 i Metropolitan Agencies I i 2013 Legislative Policies 42 ITT. Trans ortation p (5) 5-A Transportation Funding Under the current financing structure,transportation needs in the metropolitan region continue to be severely underfunded. Our transportation funding system relies heavily on the gas tax for roads and the motor vehicle sales tax (MVST)for transit. Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient and MVST receipts continue to lag behind projections, resulting in funding levels that continually fail to meet demand. Until a more sufficient and equitable transportation financing model is put in place, we must maximize existing resources. Funding and planning for our regional and statewide transportation systems must be coordinated at the federal, state, regional and local levels to optimally achieve long term needs and goals. Cities lack the authority to use additional tools for city street improvements with resources restricted to property taxes and special assessments. It is imperative that alternative revenue generating authority be granted to municipalities for this purpose to relieve the burden on the property tax system. Metro Cities strongly supports stable and sufficient statewide transportation funding and local tools to meet the long term transportation system needs of our region. Metro Cities also supports state financial assistance, as well as innovations in design and construction, to offset the impacts of regional transportation construction projects on local communities and businesses. 5-13 Regional Transit System The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system as part of a comprehensive transportation strategy that serves both commuters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of HOV lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corridors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the region's changing travel patterns. Metro Cities strongly supported the '/a cent sales tax passed by the 2008 Legislature. This tax is levied in the metropolitan area and dedicated to transit. The sales tax represents a commitment to investment in our region's transitways. Metro Cities opposes using the currently dedicated Metropolitan Transportation Area sales tax proceeds to further subsidize funding for Metro Transit and suburban transit providers that are the responsibility of the Legislature and Metropolitan Council. Any increase to the sales tax already dedicated to transit should be used to benefit the transit system as a whole. 2013 Legislative Policies 43 Transportation Metro Cities is also opposed to legislative or Metropolitan Council directives that constrain the ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse commute routes, suburb-to-suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box. In the interest of including all potential options in the pursuit of a regionally balanced transit system, Metro Cities supports the repeal of the law passed in 2002 which imposed a gag order on the Dan Patch Commuter Rail Line. Current congestion levels and forecasted population growth require a stable,reliable and growing source of revenue for transit construction and operations so that our metropolitan region can adequately and strategically meet its transportation needs to remain economically competitive. Metro Cities supports an effective, efficient and comprehensive regional transit system as an invaluable component in meeting the multimodal transportation needs of the metropolitan region and to the region's economic vibrancy and quality of life. Metro Cities supports a regional governance structure that can ensure a measurably reliable and efficient system that recognizes the diverse transit needs of our region and addresses the funding needs for all components of the system. 5-C Transit Financing The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is expanding to include rail transit and dedicated busways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system should come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities and counties should not be required to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service within this regional system. MVST revenue projections have not been reliable and the Legislature has repeatedly reduced general fund support for Metropolitan Transit. As a result the regional transit providers continue to operate at a funding deficit. Shifting demographics in the metropolitan region will mean increased demand for transit in areas with and without current transit service. Metro Cities supports stable and growing revenue sources to fund the operating budget for all regional transit providers at a level sufficient to meet the growing operational and capital transit needs of the region and to expand the system to areas that currently have little or no transit options. i 2013 Legislative Policies 44 Transportation 5-D Street Improvement Districts Street improvement districts allow cities in developed and developing areas to fund new construction as well as reconstruction and maintenance efforts. The street improvement district is designed to allow cities,through the use of a fair and objective fee structure, to create a district or districts within the city where fees will be raised.but must also be spent. Street improvement districts would also aid cities under 5,000, giving them an alternative to the property tax system and special assessments. Metro Cities supports the authority of local units of government to establish street improvement districts. 5-E Highway Turnbacks & Funding Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to absorb the additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal tumback fund is not adequate based on contemplated turnbacks. The 2008 transportation finance bill added approximately$6 million to the Metro Turnback Fund, bringing the fund up to $20 million, which falls short of the $100 million needed. Metro Cities supports jurisdictional reassignment or turnback of roads on a phased basis using functional classifications and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding of roadway improvements and continued maintenance. Metro Cities does not support the wholesale turnback of county or state roads without the total cost, agreed to by the municipality, being reimbursed to the city in a timely manner. 5-F 'W" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials' Role The Transportation Advisory Board(TAB) was developed to meet federal requirements, designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for a continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3C) transportation planning process to. allocate federal funds among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Metro Cities supports continuation of the TAB with a majority of locally elected officials as-members and participating in the process. 2013 Legislative Policies 45 Transportation 5-G Photo Enforcement of Traffic Laws Enforcement of traffic laws with cameras has been demonstrated to improve driver compliance and safety. Metro Cities supports the use of photo enforcement technology. 5-H Airport Noise Mitigation The MAC and the state should seek long-term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all homes in the 64-60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and charges collected from airport users, as well as state and federal funds. Furthermore, unless mitigation funding is provided, Metro Cities opposes any legislation that requires a property owner to disclose those properties that lie within 64-60 DNL noise contours. Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airports are significantly impacted by noise,,traffic, and other numerous expansion-related issues. Metro Cities supports the broad goal of providing MSP-impacted communities greater representation on the MAC. Metro Cities wants to encourage continued communication between the MAC commissioners and the cities they represent. Balancing the needs of MAC, the business community and airport host cities and their residents requires open communication,planning and coordination. Cities must be viewed as partners with the MAC in resolving the differences that arise out of airport projects and the development of adjacent parcels. Regular contact between the MAC and cities throughout the project proposal process will enhance communication and problem solving. Metro Cities supports noise abatement programs and expenditures to minimize the impacts of Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) operated facilities on neighboring communities. The MAC should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input process that considers the priorities and concerns of impacted cities and their residents. 5-1 Cities Under 5,000 Population Cities under 5,000 in population do not directly receive any non-property tax funds for collector and arterial streets. Current CSAH distributions to metropolitan counties are inadequate to provide for the needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Possible funding sources include the five-percent set-aside account in the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts, street improvement districts, and/or state general funds. 2013 Legislative Policies 46 Transportation Metro Cities supports establishing criteria, such as the number of average daily trips,to provide funding qualifications and a distribution method, in a small city local road improvement program. 5-J County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula Even with the additional resources provided in 2008 by the Legislature through the transportation finance bill, significant needs remain in the metro area CSAH system. The additional revenue for the CSAH system will result in more projects being completed faster,however, greater pressure is being placed on municipalities to participate in cost sharing activities, encumbering an already over-burdened local funding system. When the alternative is not building or maintaining roads, cities bear not only the costs of their local systems but also pay upward of fifty percent of county road projects. Metro Cities supports special or additional funding for cities that have burdens of additional cost participation in county road projects. CSAH eligible roads were designated by county engineers in 1956 and although only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area, they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle miles traveled. The new CSAH formula passed by the Legislature in 2008 increased the amount of CSAH funding for the metropolitan area only from 18% in 2007 to 21% in 2011. The new formula will better account for needs in the Metropolitan Area, but the new formula must only serve as is a first step in providing additional resources for the Metropolitan Area. Metro Cities supports a new CSAH formula more equitably designed to fund the needs of our metropolitan region. I� 5-K Municipal Input/Consent for Trunk Highways and County Roads Minnesota Statutes direct the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)to submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizen/business/municipal input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, it may appeal. Currently, that process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeals board are binding on both the city and MnDOT. i Metro Cities opposes changes to current statutes that would allow MnDOT to disregard the appeals board ruling for state trunk highways. Such a change would significantly minimize MnDOT's need to negotiate in good faith with cities for appropriate project access and alignment, and would render the public hearing and appeals process meaningless. Metro Cities also opposes the elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal process for these reasons. 2013 Legislative Policies 47 ii Transportation 5-L Plat Authority Current law grants counties review and comment authority for access and drainage issues for city plats abutting county roads. Metro Cities opposes any statutory change that would grant counties veto power or that would shorten the 120-day review and permit process time. 5-M City Speed Limit Control A nationally recognized Minnesota program,Toward Zero Deaths, is working to create a culture for which traffic fatalities and serious injuries are no longer acceptable through the integrated application of education, engineering, enforcement, and emergency medical and trauma services. On residential roads, where traffic safety also affects pedestrians and users of alternative transportation modes, Metro Cities supports a reduction in the state-wide default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph. Metro Cities also.supports design standards that result in slower speeds on local roads. In the event of a uniform speed limit reduction,Metro Cities supports increased state funding for education and enforcement, At cities' or counties' discretion, Metro Cities also supports a year round reduction of speed limits within 500 feet of any city or county parks and schools. 5-N MnDOT Maintenance Budget The state has abrogated its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by requiring,through omission, that cities bear the burden of maintenance on major state roads.Cities should be compensated equitably for providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. MNDOT should also be required to meet standards adopted by cities through local ordinances or reimburse cities for labor, equipment and material used on the state's behalf to improve public safety or meet local standards. Metro Cities' supports MnDOT taking full responsibility for maintaining state owned infrastructure within city limits. 5-0 Transit Taxing District The transit taxing district,which funds the capital cost of transit service in the Metropolitan Area through the property tax system, is inequitable. Because the boundaries of the transit taxing district do not correspond with any rational service line, cities in the taxing district or out of the taxing district are contributing unequally to the 2013 Legislative Policies 48 i Transportation transit service in the Metropolitan Area. This inequity should be corrected. Metro Cities supports a stable revenue source to fund both the capital and operating costs for transit at the Metropolitan Council. However, Metro Cities does not support the expansion of the transit taxing district without a corresponding increase in service. To do so would create additional property taxes without a corresponding benefit. 5-P Complete Streets A complete street may include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public.transportation stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, narrower travel lanes and more. A complete street in a rural area will differ from a complete street in a highly urban area, but both are designed to balance safety and convenience for everyone using the road. Metro Cities supports options in state design guidelines for streets that would give cities greater flexibility to: • safely accommodate all modes of travel • address storm water needs • ensure livability in the appropriate context for each city. i However,Metro Cities opposes state imposed mandates that would increase street infrastructure improvement costs in locations and instances where providing access for alternative modes including cycling and walking are deemed unnecessary or inappropriate as determined by local jurisdictions. 2013 Legislative Policies 49 Transportation I i I 2013 Legislative Policies 50 Committee Rosters (6 Housing & Economic Development Anne Mavity(Chair), Councilmember, St. Paul Park Jason Aarsvold, Dir, Comm. Dev. & EDA, Brooklyn Park Gene Abbott, Councilmember, Savage Patty Acomb, Councilmember, Minnetonka Karl Batalden, Housing Specialist/Assoc. Planner, Woodbury Cecile Bedor, Planning & Econ. Dev., St. Paul Bryan Belisle, Councilmember, White Bear Lake Joni Bennett, Councilmember, Edina Mitch Berg, Administrator, Bayport Jim Bownik,Asst, City Administrator, Lauderdale Ultan Duggan, Councilmember, Mendota Heights Jenni Faulkner, Community Dev. Dir., Burnsville Mary Gaasch, Councilmember, Lauderdale Shannon Guernsey, Executive Director, MN NAHRO Bryan Hartman, Program Manager, Bloomington Jon Hohenstein, Community Dev. Director, Eagan Schawn Johnson,Asst. to the City Manager,New Brighton Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo Anne Kane, Community Devel. Dir.; White Bear Lake Michael Leek, Community Dev. Dir.Shakopee Melissa Lesch, Gov't Relations Rep., Minneapolis Patty Lilledahl, Dir. of Business Devel. &Finance, St. Paul Lorrie Louder, Dir. of Business & IGR Affairs, St. Paul Port Authority Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights Doug Menikheim, Councilmember, Stillwater Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, Shorewood Bruce Nordquist, Comm. Dev. Dir.,Apple Valley Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal Kim O'Brien, St. Paul Terence Quigley, Councilmember, Shoreview Michael Sable, Asst, to the City Manager, Brooklyn Park Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake Mary Sherry, Councilmember, Burnsville Bob Streetar, Community Development Dir., Oakdale Erin Stwora, Asst. to City Admr., Dayton Tony Wagner, Councilmember, Minnetonka Craig Waldron, Administrator, Oakdale Brad Wiersum, Councilmember, Minnetonka Julie Wischnack, Community Dev. Dir., Minnetonka 2013 Legislative Policies 51 Roster Metropolitan Agencies Ady Wickstrom (Chair); Councilmember, Shoreview Susan Arntz, Administrator, Waconia David Beaudet, Mayor, Oak Park Heights Frank Boyles, City Manager, Prior Lake Bob Bruton, Councilmember,North St. Paul Ultan Duggan, Councilmember,Mendota Heights Jo Emerson, Mayor, White Bear Lake Sarah Erickson, Gov't Relations Rep., St. Paul Cheryl Fischer, Mayor, Minnetrista Elizabeth Glidden, Councilmember, Minneapolis Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley Chuck Haas Councilmember,Hugo g Heather Johnston, CFO, Dir. of Admin. Services, Burnsville Elizabeth Kautz, Mayor, Burnsville Thomas Link, Comm. Dev. Dir., Inver Grove Heights Lorrie Louder, Dir, Of Business &IGR Affairs, St. Paul Port Authority Anne Mavity, Councilmember, St. Louis Park Tim McNeil, Councilmember,Dayton Mark Nagel, Asst, City Admr., Elko New Market Sarah Reinhardt, Mayor, Spring Park Judd Schetnan, Director of Gov't Affairs, Metropolitan Council Terry Schneider, Mayor, Minnetonka Anne Smith, Councilmember,Lake Elmo Jennifer White, Council Assoc., Minneapolis Pierre Willette, Govt. Relations Rep.,Minneapolis Municipal Revenue & Taxation Tom Lawell(Chair), Administrator, Apple Valley Amy Brendmoen, Councilmember, St. Paul Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley Heather Butkowski, Administrator, Lauderdale Mark Casey, City Manager, St. Anthony Village Sandy Christensen, Finance Director, West St. Paul Bill Coughlin, Councilmembr, Burnsville Bruce DeJong, Finance Director, Shorewood Jim Dickinson, Administrator, Andover Ultan Duggan, Councilmember,Mendota Heights Lori Economy-S choller, Chief Financial Officer, Bloomington Jerilyn Erickson, Finance Director, Prior Lake Sarah Erickson, Gov't Relations Rep., St. Paul 2013 Legislative Policies 52 I i Roster Jerry Faust, Mayor, St. Anthony Village Marcia Glick, City Manager,Robbinsdale Susan Iverson, Dir. of Finance/Admin. Services, Arden Hills Marvin Johnson, Mayor, Independence Schawn Johnson, Asst. to the City Admr.,New Brighton Heather Johnston, CFO,Dir. of Admin. Services, Burnsville Jim Keinath, Administrator, Circle Pines Merrill King, Finance Director, Minnetonka Melissa Lesch, Gov't Relations Rep., Minneapolis Julie Linnihan, Finance Dir., Shakopee Dean Lotter, City Manager,New Brighton Kristi Luger, City Manager, Excelsior Scott Lund, Mayor, Fridley Joe Lynch, Admr., Inver Grove Heights Bill Malinen, City Manager, Roseville Justin Miller, City Admr., Mendota Heights Rebecca Olson,Exec. Asst. to the City Manager, Blaine Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Dayton Lori Peterson, HR Dir., Eagan Terry Post, Admr., Long Lake Don Rambow, Finance Dir., White Bear Lake Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis Bruce Sanders, Councilmember, Coon Rapids Ryan Schroeder, Administrator, Cottage Grove Danna Elling Schultz, Councilmember, Hastings Josh Sprague, Councilmember, Edina Steven Stahmer, Admr., Rogers Lisa Wieland, Finance Dir., Rogers Dick Woodruff, Councilmember, Shorewood Wally Wysopal, City Manager,North St. Paul Jason Ziemer, City Manager, Maple Plain Transportation & General Government Dick Swanson (Chair), Councilmember, Blaine Steve Albrecht, Dir. Public Works/City Eng., Burnsville Dick Allendorf, Councilmember, Minnetonka Doug Anderson, Mayor, Dayton Susan Amtz, Administrator, Waconia Geralyn Barone, City Manager, Minnetonka Joni Bennett, Councilmember, Edina Frank Boyles, City Manager, Prior Lake Larry Brown, Director of Public Works, Shorewood Bob Bruton, Councilmember,North St. Paul 2013 Legislative Policies 53 i Roster Paul Burke, Councilmember, Sunfish Lake Ultan Duggan, Councilmember, Mendota Heights Sarah Erickson, Gov't. Rel. Rep., St. Paul Warren Erickson, Councilmember, Prior Lake Mike Funk, Administrator, Minnetrista Steven Gallagher, Councilmember,Newport Ruth Grendahl, Councilmember, Apple Valley Roger Hackbarth, Councilmember, Maple Plain Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor,Apple Valley Gary Hansen, Councilmember, Eagan Tom Harmening, City Manager, St, Louis Park James Hovland, Mayor, Edina Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo Dan Kealey, Councilmember, Burnsville R. Michael Leek, Comm. Dev. Dir, Shakopee Robert Lilligren, Councilmember, Minneapolis Dean Lotter, City Manager,New Brighton Lorrie Louder, Dir. of Bus. & Gov't Affairs, St. Paul Port Auth. Allen Lovejoy, Public Works, St. Paul Scott Lund, Mayor, Fridley Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shakopee Mike Morrison, City Administrator, Hopkins Paul Oehme, Public Works Dir., Chanhassen Becky Petryk, Councilmember, Hugo Michael Ridley, City Planner, Eagan Will Rossbach, Mayor, Maplewood Dan Ryan, Councilmember, Brooklyn Center Sue Sandahl, Councilmember, Richfield Sue Sanger, Councilmember, St. Louis Park Judd Schetnan, Dir. of Gov't Affairs, Metropolitan Council Steve Schmidt, Councilmember, Anoka Danna Elling Schultz, Councilmember, Hastings Russ Stark, Councilmember, St. Paul Meg Tilley, Councilmember, Eagan Bethany Tjornhom, Councilmember, Chanhassen Ady Wickstrom, Councilmember, Shoreview Pierre Willette, Gov't Relations Rep., Minneapolis I 2013 Legislative Policies 54 f f Work Session Agenda Item No. 3 I MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: November 7, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage SUBJECT: Council-Staff Retreat l i Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding g scheduling a Leadership Retreat in the year 2013. Background: For the past several ears the City Council and the Administrative Leadership team have Y Y participated in a facilitated retreat. This retreat has been an opportunity review progress and to identify goals for the future. The purpose of the discussion item is to determine if a retreat should be scheduled for next year. To determine if a similar format should be followed as in the past and to select tentative dates if said retreat is to be held. Policy Issues: Are the citizens of Brooklyn Center best served by holding a facilitated joint leadership retreat engaging City Council and staff? Council Values: Visionary Leadership — We believe that the very essence of leadership is to be visionary and to plan for the future. 11.07.12.council.staff.retreat Mission:Ensurin;an attractive,clan,safe,inelusive cornrnnnify that enhances the quailty of7ife for all people and preserves the public trust Work Session Agenda Item No. 4 i i MEMORANDUM ® COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: November 8, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manager, SUBJECT: Compensation- City Manager Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction regarding the compensation of the City Manager. Background: Section 8. Compensation, paragraph (B) of the City Manager Employment Agreement states that the City Council shall evaluate the performance of the City Manager in July of 2007 and annually thereafter... Thereafter, the Manager's salary shall be reviewed and considered at the same time as consideration of salary for other non-union employees of the City. Any changes to the Manager's salary shall be pursuant to the written agreement of the Manager and the City. I have attached to this memo a listing of 2012 compensation packages for the City Managers of the 10 cities identified in Council Policy 2.05 comparison communities for Council Salary. Those Cities are Crystal, Fridley, Golden Valley, Maplewood, New Hope, Richfield, Roseville, Shoreview and White Bear Lake. The lowest 2012 compensation in the group is $108,087 the highest is $150,652. The mean average is $ $136,205 and the Mid-Point is $141,848. The compensation for the Brooklyn Center City Manager is $ 127,773. As indicated above, changes to the compensation of the City Manager are to be made by written agreement. I have prepared a draft template addendum to the Employment Agreement between the City and the City Manager. You may wish to use this template as a form to consider mutually agreed upon changes that can put in final form for official Council action. Policy Issues: Does the performance of the City Manager warrant a change in compensation? Council Goals: We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Enclosures: Ali.ssion:Ensrrrit,,an attractive,clean,safe,irrchrsive conrnurtritp that enhances the duality of life fur all people and preserves the public trust i ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Addendum is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Cornelius L. Boganey (hereinafter referred to as the "Manager") as of the Day of November, 2012. WHERAS, the City and Manager have entered into an employment agreement dated September 25, 2006 (herein after referred to as the "Employment Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in the Employment Agreement and herein, City and Manager agree the Employment is amended as follows: Section 8.Compensation B)The Salary for the Manager shall be $ effective on C) In lieu of mileage reimbursement the Manager shall be paid an annual car allowance in the amount of to be paid in 12 equal installments. F)The City shall contribute $ annually to a qualified deferred compensation plan selected by the City Manager. G)The City shall contribute provide the following additional benefits for the City Manager Except as explicitly modified in the Addendum, the Employment Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA EMPLOYEE By: By Tim Wilson, Mayor Cornelius L. Boganey By: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk i 2012 City Manager Salary Survey Remove high and Annual Car Life Health Deferred Total low City Wage Allowance Insurance Insurance Comp Other Comp !, Brooklyn Center $127,773 127,773 Crystal $125,881 $6,000 $125,000 reg life is$20,000 $131,881 131881 Fridley $126,301 $4,177 $50,000 $9,157 reg life is$25,000 $143,424 143424 (no PERA) no PERA gets equiv in $3,789 deferred comp 3%addtl Golden Valley $136,797 $6,144 $142,941 142941 Maplewood $131,290 $6,000 $7,877 $145,167 145167 6%addtl New Hope $108,087 $108,087 Richfield $143,936 $6,716 $150,652 Roseville $138,258 $138,258 138258 Shoreview $136,448 $5,400 $141,848 141848 White Bear Lake $116,605 $3,900 $6,240(retirement opt) $132,019 132019 $5,274(perf pay) Arithmatic Mean $129,289.22 $5,270.17 $136,205.00 137,914 Mid Point $ 141,848 City Manager Employment Agreement THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Cornelius L. Boganey (hereinafter referred to as the"Manager") as of the 25th day of September, 2006. WHEREAS, the City wishes to engage the services of the Manager as a professional employee; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the terms and conditions of their relationship in this contract in order to assure the requisite flexibility to enable the Manager to function as the City's chief administrative official; and WHEREAS, the nature of the Manager's position requires continued professional training and attendance at meetings during evenings and other non-traditional work times. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this agreement, City and Manager agree as follows: Section 1. Employment. Manager shall be employed by the City as City Manager commencing on the 26th day of September, 2006. Section 2 Duties. The duties of the Manager's position shall be as set forth in the City's Charter and ordinances and such other duties which are consistent therewith as may be assigned from time to time by the City Council. Section 3. Discharge of Duties. Manager shall be paid a salary as a professional employee and shall not be paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per week and similarly shall be able to be absent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures. The discharge of Manager's duties requires work outside the normal work day for meetings and projects. To that end, the Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to Manager to discharge the duties of his position. Section 4. Evaluation. Manager shall be evaluated on the performance of his duties in July of 2007 and at least annually thereafter by the City Council as a whole. Such evaluation shall be based on the written goals established by the City Council and the general duties set forth in Section 2 of this Agreement. Section 5. Participation in Employee Benefits. A) Health Insurance. The City shall provide health insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides health insurance for non-union employees. B) Life Insurance. The City shall provide life insurance coverage for the Manager in the same fashion as it provides life insurance for non-union employees. -1- C) Except as otherwise specified within this Agreement, Manager shall receive or be eligible to participate in any other benefits provided for non-union employees generally. Section 6. Vacation and Holidays. Manager shall accrue days of vacation on the first day of each month equal to an annual rate of 20 days per year. Manager may accrue vacation to a maximum accumulation of 200 hours. Manager shall not be required to use vacation leave except for a whole day's absence from performing Manager's duties. The Manager may, at Manager's discretion take 1/2 day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager's duties. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all accrued and unused vacation leave at the Manager's then current rate of compensation. Manager shall also have the same paid holidays off from work as the City's non-union employees. Section 7. Sick Leave. Manager shall accrue days of sick leave at the same rate as other non-union employees. Upon leaving the City's employ, for whatever reason, the Manager shall be entitled to payment for all unused sick leave in accordance with the provision of the City's personnel code applicable to non-union employees. Section 8. Compensation. A) Initial Salary. The Manager's initial salary at the commencement of this contract shall be $115,000 per year. Such salary shall be paid at the intervals customarily used for other city employees. B) Evaluation and Salary Increases. The City Council shall evaluate the performance of the Manager in July of 2007 and annually thereafter. The Manager's salary shall be increased to $119,000 effective July 1, 2007, if Manager's performance is deemed to be satisfactory. Thereafter, the Manager's salary shall be reviewed and considered at the same time as consideration of salary for other non-union employees of the City. Any changes in the Manager's salary shall be pursuant to the written agreement of the Manager and the City. C) Personal Auto Usage. Manager shall be reimbursed for personal automobile use for trips, meetings, work, and other use related to his employment at the rate consistent with Internal Revenue Service regulations. D) Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions. The City will pay the cost of membership in the International City/County Management Association, the Minnesota City/County Management Association, and like organizations and subscriptions to professional journals and publications. -2- E) Participation in Professional Training/Development. The City will pay the cost of the Manager's participation and attendance at the ICMA Annual Conference or similar national training opportunity, MCMA Annual conference, League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and miscellaneous professional training programs offered within the State of Minnesota. Section 10. Expenses Incurred in Performing Duties. The City shall reimburse or directly pay for actual expenses reasonably incurred by the Manager that are directly related to performing Manager's duties. The parties contemplate that the Manager will incur expenses for travel, attendance at meetings, etc. The Manager will be reimbursed for use of the Manager's personal car at the current IRS rate. Section 11. Retirement Benefits. The City shall pay the employer's portion of the Minnesota Public Employment Retirement Association contribution on Manager's salary. The Manager shall, in addition to the retirement benefits provided above, be allowed to participate, at Manager's own expense, in IRS approved deferred compensation plans offered through the City. Section 12. Discontinuance of Employment Relationship. The Manager shall be removable by the City Council at will subject only to the limitations imposed by the City Charter. Understanding that the Manager serves as the chief administrative official for the City and Manager's employment status can be affected by political influences that are independent of job performance, the parties wish to make arrangements that reflect the realities of the marketplace and are necessary to recruit qualified persons. The parties wish to assure flexibility for the council, while providing for the ability of the Manager to perform Manager's duties without undue concern for Manager's financial security should the need arise to seek new employment. Therefore, the parties have made concessions and the Manager, as part of Manager's compensation agreement has made concessions in the amount of salary and other forms of compensation in return for the covenants contained in this section 12 relating to the discontinuance of the employment relationship. A) Manager shall give the City 30 days notice prior to discontinuing Manager's employment, where there has been no event constituting an involuntary separation as hereinafter set forth. B) In the event an "involuntary separation" occurs, the Manager may choose to resign prior to the effective date of any formal action by the City to terminate Manager's employment. C) Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement the term "involuntary separation" shall mean a formal request adopted at a public meeting by the City Council that the Manager resign or an action adopted by the City Council terminating this Agreement. The term "involuntary separation" shall also mean the resignation of the Manager within 30 days of the effective occurrence of any of the following: i) A change in the form of government at the City due to the adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter, election to adopt or repeal a particular statutory form of government (other than for a Plan B statutory form of government), or an ordinance/resolution changing the City's organizational structure that diminishes or reassigns the Manager's authority. -3- ii) A fundamental change in the duties and authority of the Manager adopted by the City Council, by special or general election, or by referendum or initiative such that the City of Brooklyn Center's status as a council-manager plan city is changed by ICMA to some status other than a council-manager form of government. D) Payment upon Involuntary Separation. In the event of an involuntary separation, whether through a resignation or resolution/motion terminating the Agreement, the Manager shall be entitled to the following: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment by the City of the full cost of family health insurance, at level of coverage in effect just prior to the involuntary separation for a period of)G full months from the date such involuntary separation becomes effective. In addition, the Manager shall be entitled, at Manager's own cost to continue participation in the City's group insurance plans for at least 18 months after the City is no longer required to make full payment of premiums for Manager's insurance coverage, provided the City's group insurance plan authorizes such continued participation. c) Severance Payment. The Manager shall receive the following severance benefits: i) Six (6) months salary computed at %the Manager's gross annual wages. d) Time of payment. All payments due under this section shall be paid by noon on the day after the separation becomes effective. F) Payment Upon Voluntary Termination. Upon the Manager's voluntary termination of employment, he shall be entitled to full payment by the next following pay period of: a) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager's current rate of pay. b) Payment of all wages for days worked since the last payroll period prior to separation. G) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or claims that either party may have beyond the compensation due in the normal course of the separation of the Manager from the City's employ. Section 13. Term. This Agreement shall be for an indefinite term until terminated by one or both of the parties as set forth in this Agreement. Section 14. Indemnification. The City shall defend and indemnify the Manager pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.07 and 465.76. The City shall also defend and hold harmless and indemnify the Manager from all torts, civil damages, penalties, fines, provided the Manager was acting in the performance of Manager's duties. -4- Section 15. Merger. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written communications between the parties. Section 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the employment relationship between the City and the Manager and the parties agree that there were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this Agreement except as herein contained. Section 17. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement will not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Section 18. Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section 19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will be constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, EMPLOYEE MINNESOTA By �— M a Kragness 117 Corn us L- Its Mayor -5- ADDENDUM TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT This Addendum is made and entered into by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), and Cornelius L. Boganey(hereinafter referred to as the "Manager") as of the 9th day of October, 2006. WHEREAS, the City and Manager have entered into an employment agreement dated September 25, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Employment Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in the Employment Agreement and herein, City and Manager agree that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows: 1. Section 12, paragraph D) of the Employment Agreement is amended by adding the following sentence: e) If the Manager is terminated by the City Council for substantiated and proven malfeasance in office, or intentional misconduct, the City shall have no obligation to provide payment and benefits listed in paragraph D) a) through D) c) of this section. Intentional misconduct is defined as substantiated and proven sexual, racial or other unlawful harassment, distribution of pornography, or acts of physical violence in the work place. "Intentional misconduct" and "malfeasance" as used in this paragraph do not include poor performance or neglect of duties. Except as explicitly modified in this Addendum, the Employment Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA EMPLOYEE Im A,� k,4-4�1 By: Myrna Kr4ness, Mayor Corneli ganey By: JPgtLt&M- Sharon Knutson, City Clerk