HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 09-23 CCP Regular SessionAGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 23 2013
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
September 23, 2013
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.September 3, 2013 — Joint Work Session with Financial Commission
2.September 9, 2013 — Study Session
3.September 9, 2013 — Regular Session
4.September 9, 2013 — Work Session
5. September 13, 2013 — Special Session
b. Licenses
c.Application and Permit for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Submitted by City
of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation for an Event to be Held at Surly Brewing
Company, 4811 Dusharme Drive, Brooklyn Center, on October 26, 2013
d.Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modification
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3, and the Adoption of a Modification to
Tax Increment Financing Plan
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- September 23, 2013
e. Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Reduction for 420 66 th Avenue North
and 512 66 th Avenue North (Holiday Station-Store and River Road Dental
Offices)
7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations
a.Annual Update — Mike Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney
Requested Council Action:
—None, update only.
b.Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth Report — Rebecca Gilgen, Executive Director
Requested Council Action:
—Motion to receive report.
c.Presentation by Mike Sims, Mid America Real Estate Group, on Market Activity
and Businesses Locating Within the Shingle Creek Crossing Development
Requested Council Action:
—None, presentation only.
d.Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public
Service of Phil Cohen
Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
8. Public Hearings
a. Continued Special Assessment Hearing for Proposed Special Assessments for
Delinquent Utility Bills
1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility
Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Property Tax Rolls
Requested Council Action:
—Motion to reopen Public Hearing.
—Motion to take public input.
—Motion to close Public Hearing.
—Motion to adopt resolution.
b. Continued Special Assessment Hearing for Proposed Special Assessments for
Administrative Fines/Citation Costs
1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative
Fines/Citation Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls
Requested Council Action:
—Motion to reopen Public Hearing.
—Motion to take public input.
—Motion to close Public Hearing.
—Motion to adopt resolution.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- September 23, 2013
9.Planning Commission Items
—None
10.Council Consideration Items
a.Continued Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for
5715 Emerson Avenue North
1. Resolution Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5715 Emerson
Avenue North
Requested Council Action:
—Receive staff report.
—Motion to continue hearing.
—Receive testimony from applicant.
—Motion to close hearing.
—Motion to adopt resolution.
b.Resolution Establishing Improvement, Accepting Feasibility Report, Ordering
Improvement, and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Water
Treatment Plant Improvements Project No. 2014-05
Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
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
JOINT WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
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 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin
Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present: City Manager Curt Boganey, Assistant City
Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, Interim Finance
Director Greg Andrews, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum.
Others present were Financial Commissioners Patricia Glenn, Steve Landis, and Rex Newman.
OVERVIEW/INTRODUCTION, REVIEW OF PROPOSED BUDGET, PROPERTY TAX
IMPACT BY CLASSIFICATION, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
City Manager Curt Boganey presented an update since the August 5, 2013, meeting at which the
City Council and Financial Commission had directed staff to prepare a General Fund Budget that
allowed for a budget that would meet the criteria of service level funding and a maximum levy
increase of 3.5 percent, along with the use of Local Government Aid to fund the gap between
estimated revenues and expenditures. The desired outcome from this evening would be to get an
understanding and consensus regarding a Preliminary Levy; an understanding and consensus on
a Preliminary General Fund Budget; and consensus on the next steps for further General Fund
Business Plan Review, use of Excess Tax Increment, and Industrial/Commercial Property Tax
Impacts.
City Manager Boganey outlined materials discussing proposed General Fund recommendations,
Goals for 2014/2015, recommended Revenue Changes for a Balanced 2014 Budget,
recommended Expenditure Changes for a Balanced Preliminary Budget, and Excess Tax
Increment.
Interim Finance Director Greg Andrews outlined proposed General Fund Revenues, General
Fund Expenditures, Taxable Market Value Pay 2013 Compared to 2014, Tax Capacity Pay 2013
Compared to 2014, Pay 2014 Property Tax Levy, Projected City Property Tax Change for Taxes
Payable 2014, and other Considerations for General Fund Departmental Reviews and Impact of
Industrial/Commercial Tax Capacity Shift.
09/03/13 -1- DRAFT
There was discussion regarding the information presented and consensus was to move forward
on September 9, 2013, with a 3.5 percent increase for pay 2014 Property Tax Levy. It was noted
that staff will be recommending bonds to be sold for the street reconstruction project. Once the
Finance Department is fully staffed, the City Council may decide to direct staff to work with the
Finance Commission to review and make comparisons of industrial and commercial tax rate
trends in Brooklyn Center.
NEXT STEPS
There was no discussion on the next steps which were listed on the agenda as follows:
a.Preliminary Levy and Preliminary Budget Adoption — September 9, 2013
b.Utility Fund Review
c.Enterprise Fund Review
d.Public Meeting — December 2, 2013
e.Pay Plan, Utility Rates Adoption —November 25, 2013
f.Final Levy and Budget Adoption — December 9, 2013
MISCELLANEOUS
There were no miscellaneous items discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to adjourn
the Work Session at 8:10 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
09/03/13 -2- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson
at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin
Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Finance
Director Greg Andrews, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, City
Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth,
TimeS aver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
Councilmember Kleven requested discussion on Item 10.c.2, Resolution Adopting a Preliminary
Budget for the 2014 Fiscal Year, in particular the e-mail from a resident relating to the Mayor
Council budget expenditure line item. City Manager Curt Boganey stated the dollar numbers
being referenced reflect the entire budget for the City Council including salaries, benefits, travel,
retreat, annual audit, memberships, as well as other items.
Councilmember Kleven noted under Teen Recreation and City gave $50,000 to Brooklyn Bridge
Alliance and $50,000 for the gym floor. She asked where those dollars are reflected in the
budget. Mr. Boganey stated the line item being referenced is for specific teen programs the City
runs geared towards teens and does not include the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance or gym floor
expenditures. He noted the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance contribution is shown under the Joint
Powers Agreement line item.
The City Council discussed the impact of the sub-ledger computer glitch that occurred in 2013
and supported the suggestion of Councilmember Ryan to ask staff to review the net support for
teen recreation and after school programs including the CARS programs before responding to the
resident's e-mail.
Mayor Willson stated a bigger issue is that an the error in a line item had been noticed at a joint
session with the Financial Commission and asked staff to verify all figures within the General•
Fund Budget Year 2013 information. He noted there may be other errors that have not yet been
identified.
09/09/13 -1- DRAFT
Mr. Boganey stated the 2014 numbers have been verified; however, the 2013 budget numbers
had not been verified. He assured the City Council that he believed the 2014 budget numbers are
correct.
The City Council agreed that the books should be correct from year to year and since the errors
are known at this time, the correction should be made. Mr. Boganey stated $37,313 was
approved as the Teen Recreation 2013 budget line so the only way to make that correction is to
amend the 2013 budget.
The City Council asked staff to prepare a Resolution to amend the 2013 budget prior to the end
of the year.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested discussion on Item 10.a., Consideration of a
Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5715 Emerson Avenue North, in particular the
lack of meeting Code requirements that had resulted in payment of expensive fees. She asked
how long the City Council will continue to approve a rental license to a property owner who is
not following the Mitigation Plan or applicable Ordinances.
The City Council discussed the history of Code and Mitigation Plan violations for 5715 Emerson
Avenue North and expressed a reluctance to consider renewal of a Rental License for a property
that is habitually out of compliance.
Mr. Boganey agreed this property owner is a habitual violator of Code provisions and the City
Council has options to consider. He noted this property now meets the requirements of a Type
IV 6-month Provisional Rental License so under the Ordinance, the City Council can disapprove
the Mitigation Plan or require changes/modifications to that Plan. Mr. Boganey explained that
should a Rental License not be approved, the property owner still receives rent revenues as long
as the same renter remains in the property. However, if the renter leaves the property, the
property owner would not be able to re-rent the unit until a Rental License is approved.
Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning
explained the process that would be followed should the City Council direct staff it wants to
deny the rental license. She indicated that if denied, the rental licensing process has to again be
followed or the property owner would be cited in Hennepin County Court for operating without a
rental license. That would involve a formal complaint process, spot check, and if the property
owner is renting without a license, would be formally prosecuted through the Hennepin County
Court process. She explained the current issue with this property is not Code violations, but
monthly reporting.
The City Council noted that in past similar circumstances, it has asked staff for a
recommendation on whether or not the property owner is now on the right track. Ms. Schleuning
stated this property owner was very concerned and the licensing process is making an impact.
She indicated staff is spending less time because the violation involves the property owner not
submitting the monthly e-mail/check, which is more of an administrative duty. Ms. Schleuning
explained staff has met with this property owner many times and with a Type IV License, it
09/09/13 -2- DRAFT
requires constant follow-through with check-ins and providing feedback so the property owner
needs to be organized to follow that process.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested discussion on Item 8.b., Proposed Special
Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts, in particular whether additional
information is available relating to the damage to Wilfried Zehourou's water sprinkler and
resulting water bill. Mr. Boganey stated staff has additional infounation but it did not seem
appropriate to bring forward this evening. He noted the City Council has received his written
appeal and if desired, can direct staff to provide additional information and recommendation.
MISCELLANEOUS
WORK SESSION REQUEST REGARDING FINANCING TO COVER THE COST OF
ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS — COUNCILMEMBER RYAN
Councilmember Ryan reviewed the number of violations found during Code Enforcement
sweeps focusing on the Lions Park Neighborhood. He stated he supports this initiative by staff
as it meets the City Council's goals and resident's desire for the City to address messy yards.
However, some of the fix up requirements are of a high-cost nature. Councilmember Ryan
referenced a resident's letter relating to a paved driveway in poor condition and having no other
option but to repave. He stated in this case, the property owner would like to make the
improvement but it would be a financial hardship. Councilmember Ryan raised the option of
offering low-interest loans through a Fix-Up Fund. He suggested it be determined how many
properties have been cited for high-cost repairs and whether the Fix-Up Fund is sufficient to
cover that number of projects.
Mr. Boganey stated in 2013 the City issued 25 driveway repair orders City-wide with eight being
in the Lions Park Neighborhood. He distributed infoimation related to low-interest funding
opportunities.
Councilmember Kleven asked whether the City has issued loans. Mr. Boganey stated the City
does not provide direct loans and reviewed the agencies that offer housing rehab loans.
Councilmember Kleven asked about accountability to assure the funds •are actually used to
correct the Code violation. Mayor Willson stated the program may require submittal of invoices
for work completed.
Mayor Willson asked how that process works and if the City can partner to initiate the process.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Willson closed the Study Session at 6:46 p.m.
09/09/13 -3- DRAFT
RECONVENE STUDY SESSION
Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to reconvene the
Study Session at 6:52 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION REQUEST REGARDING FINANCING TO COVER THE COST OF
ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS — COUNCILMEMBER RYAN — CONTINUED
The City Council voiced its support to connect residents in need of financial assistance to gain
Code compliance with those agencies that administer such programs. It was acknowledged that
funds are limited through those agencies.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if the Building and Community Standards letter can
be incorporated into a form letter to inform residents of the opportunities for financial assistance
and agencies that offer such assistance.
Mayor Willson stated if a citation is issued, the property owner can attend the administrative
hearing so options for financial assistance can be discussed and considered as a mitigating
circumstance. Mr. Boganey stated when property owners receive a citation, they often call staff
and work together to consider options.
The City Council asked Mr. Boganey to research financing options, the process for residents in
need to contact those agencies, and how the City can work with residents to obtain low-cost
loans to gain Code compliance.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Willson closed the Study Session at 7:00 p.m.
09/09/13 -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
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
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, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin
Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Finance
Director Greg Andrews, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City
Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney
Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum.
No one wished to address the City Council.
Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the
Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2.INVOCATION
As the invocation, Councilmember Myszkowski commented on the patient interaction of the
City's Postal Workers with residents and shared a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
3.CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson
at 7:00 p.m.
4.ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin
Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Finance
09/09/13 -1- DRAFT
Director Greg Andrews, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning
Specialist Tim Benetti, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards
Vickie Schleuning, 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 Kleven moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve
the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved:
6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.August 26,2013 — Study Session
2.August 26,2013 — Regular Session
3.August 26,2013 — Work Session
6b. LICENSES
MECHANICAL
A & M Heating & Air
Bredahl Plumbing, Inc.
Creative Heating and A/C
Jay Hawk Mechanical
Sharp Heating & A/C
Total Refrigeration Systems, Inc.
22280 Tippecanoe Street NE, East Bethel
7916 73 td Avenue N., Brooklyn Park
355 21 st Street, Newport
3307 North Second Avenue NE, Fridley
7221 University Avenue NE, Fridley
949 Concord Street, South St. Paul
RENTAL — CURRENT RENTAL STANDARDS
INITIAL (TYPE II— two-year license)
4912 Abbott Avenue N.
5432 Bryant Avenue N.
6424 Scott Avenue N.
RENEWAL (TYPE — one-year license)
1300 68 th Lane N.
RENEWAL (TYPE H— two-year license)
5101 Xerxes Avenue N.
5418 70 t11 Circle
4700 Eleanor Lane
5330 Girard Avenue N.
RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license)
Andrew Pust
Christopher Raisch
Chen Zhou
Scott Hartmann / No CPTED
Dion Ramsey
Doug Wahl
Kao Thao
Charles Bright
09/09/13 -2- DRAFT
1323 67 th Lane N.
1312 68 th Lane N.
Ali Sajjad
Konrad Wagner
SIGNHANGER
Twin Cities Sign Installations 14333 Ural Street NE, Ham Lake
6c.RESOLUTION NO. 2013-102 REVOKING RENTAL DWELLING
LICENSE FOR 4901 61 ST AVENUE NORTH
6d.RESOLUTION NO. 2013-103 REMOVING 2012 CERTIFIED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR 6020 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH, BROOKLYN
CENTER, MN AS LISTED IN RESOLUTION NO. 2012-122 CERTIFYING
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES/CITATIONS TO
THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Motion passed unanimously.
7.PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS
- None.
8.PUBLIC HEARINGS
8a. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT NUISANCE
ABATEMENT COSTS, DELINQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE FINES/
CITATIONS, AND DELINQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE VACANT BUILDING
REGISTRATIONS
Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning
introduced the item and summarized the process for the City to specially assess public nuisance
abatement costs, administrative vacant building registrations, administrative fines, citations, and
delinquent utilities. She described the procedure for property owner notification and public
hearing. Ms. Schleuning advised of options available after receiving an administrative citation
and resulting process for each. She recommended holding the Public Hearings for all three
special assessments simultaneously and if an assessment is appealed, action on that property will
be continued to allow time for staff review and report at the September 23, 2013, City Council
meeting.
Mr. Schleuning stated the delinquencies under consideration total $17,219.25 for nuisance
abatement costs, $6,480 for vacant building registrations, and $111,385 for administrative
fines/citations.
Mayor Willson noted the total delinquencies, when including utilities, approaches one-half a
million dollars annually. Mr. Boganey estimated that 80% or higher of property owners pay the
assessment on an annual basis.
09/09/13 -3- DRAFT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to open the
Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Dina Caceres, daughter of Rosa Caceres, stated her intention to appeal the special assessment for
administrative fines/citations on 5633 Logan Avenue North.
Gboyee Seeyon stated he wanted to plead with the City Council to not place a special assessment
for administrative fines/citations on 5901 Vincent Avenue North. Mayor Willson stated it is
unlikely the City Council will consider waiving the assessment and asked Mr. Seeyon if he
would like to appeal the assessment. Mr. Seeyon stated he wanted to plead with the City Council
to not approve the charge.
Glen Oilman stated his intention to appeal the special assessment for administrative
fines/citations on 6407 Fremont Avenue North.
Doyinsola Lawall stated her intention to appeal the special assessment for administrative
fines/citations on 5826 Humboldt Avenue North.
Jose Mendoza stated his intention to appeal the special assessment for administrative
fines/citations on 6845 Perry Avenue North.
Kathryn Lee stated her intention to appeal the special assessment for administrative
fines/citations on 3919 52 nd Avenue North.
Christopher Erickson stated his intention to appeal the special assessment for administrative
fines/citations on 6918 Grimes Avenue North.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
1.RESOLUTION NO 2013-104 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
TAX ROLLS
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-104 Certifying Special Assessments for Nuisance Abatement Costs to
the Hennepin County Tax Rolls.
Motion passed unanimously.
2.RESOLUTION NO. 2013-105 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION COSTS
TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
09/09/13 -4- DRAFT
Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-105 Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative Vacant
Building Registration Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls.
Motion passed unanimously.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-106 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES / CITATION COSTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2013-106 Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative Fines /
Citation Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, excepting the following properties: 5826
Humboldt Avenue North, 5901 Vincent Avenue North, 5633 Logan Avenue North, 3919 52'd
Avenue North, 6918 Grimes Avenue North, 6845 Perry Avenue North, and 6407 Fremont
Avenue North, and continue the Public Hearing for those properties.
Motion passed unanimously.
NOTE: Resolution No. 2013-106 was reconsidered following Agenda Item 10.b.1.
8b. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY
SERVICE ACCOUNTS
Ms. Schleuning introduced the item and explained the process to certify delinquent public utility
service accounts for collection with property taxes following a public hearing. She indicated the
City has received one written appeal for 5042 Ewing Avenue North.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Musa Manobah stated his intention to appeal the special assessment for delinquent utilities on
5305 Irving Avenue North.
Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-107 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-107 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility
09/09/13 - -5- DRAFT
Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, excepting 5305 Irving Avenue North and
5042 Ewing Avenue North continuing the Public Hearing for those properties.
Motion passed unanimously.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
9a.PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-015 SUBMITTED BY THE
LUTHER COMPANY LLLP. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BRI-
MAR THIRD ADDITION, AS PART OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
2008 LUTHER BROOKDALE HONDA-TOYOTA PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission
Application No. 2013-15 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
applications at its August 29, 2013, meeting.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-108 REGARDING DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-015 SUBMITTED
BY THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP FOR APPROVAL OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BRI-MAR THIRD ADDITION
Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2013-108 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-015
Submitted by the Luther Company, LLLP for Approval of Preliminary Plat of Bri-Mar Third
Addition.
Motion passed unanimously.
9b.PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-016 SUBMITTED BY THE
LUTHER COMPANY LLLP. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF FINAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 LUTHER BROOKDALE HONDA-TOYOTA
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission
Application No. 2013-16 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
applications at its August 29, 2013, meeting.
The City Council conveyed its support for the application of Luther Company, noting it has been
a good citizen for Brooklyn Center. Mayor Willson extended the City's apology to Linda
McGinty, Luther Company, for the negative comments voiced at the Planning Commission
meeting.
Darrin Lazan, Landform Professional Services representing the Luther Company, stated they are
excited to move this last piece of the project forward. He stated they have no concerns with any
09/09/13 -6- DRAFT
of the conditions placed and will take measures to save the tree in the northeast corner that had
been of concern for some. Mr. Lazan stated the Luther Group wants to assure the City they will
work towards saving all of the trees; however, flexibility is needed to work with staff in the event
a tree cannot be saved during construction. If that occurs, they would agree to replace or relocate
with in kind trees.
Mayor Willson stated the City has enjoyed the same sentiment with the Luther Organization in
being diligent to save trees, whenever possible, and the City Council recognizes that during
construction, root damage can occur.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-109 REGARDING DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-016 SUBMITTED
BY THE LUTHER COMPANY, LLLP REQUESTING FINAL
DEVELOPMENT / SITE PLAN APPROVAL OF THE VEHICLE
PARKING AND STORAGE AREA COMPREHENDED UNDER THE
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 LUTHER BROOKDALE HONDA-
TOYOTA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT •
Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2013-109 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission
Application No. 2013-016 Submitted by the Luther Company, LLLP Requesting Final
Development/Site Plan Approval of the Vehicle Parking and Storage Area Comprehended Under
the First Amendment to the 2008 Luther Brookdale Honda-Toyota Planned Unit Development.
Motion passed unanimously.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE
FOR 5715 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH
Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide
testimony on this rental license. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a
motion.
1. RESOLUTION APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5715
EMERSON AVENUE NORTH
It was noted that at tonight's Study Session, the City Council had voiced concern relating to
ongoing Mitigation Plan and Ordinance violations and dissatisfaction with the recommendation
to issue a Type IV Provisional Rental License.
City Attorney LeFevere stated this hearing is limited to deciding whether to accept the
Mitigation Plan and if not accepted, if the City Council should ask staff to prepare findings and
alternative direction for consideration at the next meeting.
09/09/13 -7- DRAFT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to continue
consideration of a Type IV License for 5715 Emerson Avenue North, and direct staff to prepare
findings and recommendation for alternative direction.
Motion passed unanimously.
10b. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE
FOR 4714 WINGARD LANE
Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide
testimony on this rental license. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a
motion.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-110 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL
LICENSE FOR 4714 WINGARD LANE
Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to Adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2013-110 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 4714 Wingard Lane, subject to the
requirement that the mitigation plan and all applicable ordinances must be strictly adhered to
before a renewal rental license would be considered.
Motion passed unanimously.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — CONTINUED
David Wylie, 6943 West Palmer Lake Drive, stated he wanted to appeal an administrative
citation but was delayed in traffic from arriving earlier. Mr. LeFevere advised that the City
Council could entertain a motion to reconsider the resolution adopting the Special Assessments
so the Public Hearing can be reopened and Mr. Wylie's appeal considered.
8a. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT NUISANCE
ABATEMENT COSTS, DELINQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE FINES/
CITATIONS, AND DELINQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE VACANT BUILDING
REGISTRATIONS
3. RECONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2013-106 CERTIFYING
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES / CITATION
COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to reconsider
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-106 Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative Fines /
Citation Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, and reopen the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
09/09/13 -8- DRAFT
David Wylie stated his intention to appeal the special assessment for administrative
fines/citations on 6943 West Palmer Lake Drive.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-106 Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative Fines /
Citation Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, excepting the following properties: 5826
Humboldt Avenue North, 5901 Vincent Avenue North, 5633 Logan Avenue North, 3919 52 nd
Avenue North, 6918 Grimes Avenue North, 6845 Perry Avenue North, 6407 Fremont Avenue
North, and 6943 West Palmer Lake Drive, and continue the Public Hearing for those properties.
Motion passed unanimously.
10c. PRELIMINARY 2014 LEVY AND BUDGET
Interim Finance Director Andrews introduced the item and presented the preliminary 2014 Levy
and Budget in the amount of $15,038,262. It was noted this total included an improvement bond
levy to allow that opportunity; however, it can be removed or reduced prior to final adoption in
December. If the bond levy remains, it results in an increase of $448,051 or 3.07%. If the bond
levy is not included, it results in a decrease of $236,051 or -1.62%.
The City Council thanked Interim Finance Director Andrews for his work on the budget and
asked questions relating to the median single-family residential property experiencing a decrease
in taxes of $64.96 while the levy is increased 3.5%. Mr. Andrews explained that in 2013, the
median home value is lower than it was in 2014, which results in lower taxes.
Mr. Boganey explained how tax capacity impacts the amount of taxes paid by a residential
property. Mayor Willson noted it is also impacted by the State Legislature changing the taxing
formulas. Mr. Boganey explained that with the levy limit, the City Council had the ability to
increase taxes by $725,669 or 5.10%; however, chose not to do so.
The City Council acknowledged the Fire Station Bond has been retired so a smaller bond levy
can be considered without raising property taxes. Mr. Boganey stated the bond levy included is
to pay the City's share of the Street Reconstruction Program.
1. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-111 APPROVING A PRELIMINARY TAX
CAPACITY LEVY FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND DEBT SERVICE
FUNDS AND A MARKET VALUE TAX LEVY FOR THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE
IN 2014
Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-111 Approving a Preliminary Tax Capacity Levy for the General
Fund and Debt Service Funds and a Market Value Tax Levy for the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority for Property Taxes Payable in 2014.
Motion passed unanimously.
09/09/13 -9- DRAFT
10d. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-112 ADOPTING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR
THE 2014 FISCAL YEAR
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2013-112 Adopting a Preliminary Budget for the 2014 Fiscal Year.
With regard to the incorrect line item relating to the Teen Recreation Program, Mr. Boganey
stated that related to the 2013 budget and if desired by the City Council, this year's budget can
be amended.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on
the following upcoming events:
•September 3, 2013, Joint Session with the Financial Commission
•September 4, 2013, Town Meeting hosted by Congressman Ellison and Representative
Hilstrom
•September 10, 2013, East Palmer Lake Neighborhood Meeting
•September 14, 2013, 60 th Anniversary Open House for the Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on
the following upcoming events:
•August 24, 2013, MAC meeting at the Police Department
•August 29, 2013, Earle Brown Elementary, Brooklyn Center High School, and Odyssey
Academy Open Houses
•August 29, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting
•September 3, 2013, Joint Session with Financial Commission
•September 4, 2013, Minnesota History Center Event
•September 4, 2013, Town Meeting hosted by Congressman Ellison and Representative
Hilstrom
•September 7, 2013, Brooklyn Center Little League Park Fundraiser
•September 8, 2013, Unity Temple Church of God in Christ Civic Community Day Event
•September 9, 2013, Tour of Northport Elementary School
•The bridge across Highway 100 and 57 th is now open
Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following and provided
information on the following upcoming events:
•September 3, 2013, Joint Session with the Financial Commission
•September 5, 2013, CRAP Finance Committee Meeting
•September 7, 2013, Brooklyn Center Little League Park Fundraiser
09/09/13 -10- DRAFT
•The works of three Brooklyn Center artists, Phillip R. Anderson, Stephanie L. Kunze, and
Eric Gene Sommers were chosen for display at the Minnesota State Fair, the State's largest
juried art show.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson reported on her attendance at the following and provided
information on the following upcoming events:
•August 28, 2013, Odyssey Academy Board Meeting
•August 29, 2013, Brooklyn Center High School Open House
•August 30, 2013, Brooklyn Center High School Football Game
•September 3, 2013, Joint Session with Financial Commission
•September 6, 2013, Brooklyn Center Business Association Golf Fundraiser Event
•September 10, 2013, East Palmer Lake Neighborhood Meeting
•September sat, 2013, Police Department Open House
Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following events:
•August 27, 2013, Steering Committee Meeting with African Immigration Services
•September 3, 2013, Joint Session with Financial Commission
12. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded adjournment of
the City Council meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
09/09/13 -11- 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
SEPTEMBER 9, 2013
CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work
Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 9:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kris
Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt
Boganey, Interim Finance Director Greg Andrews, Director of Business and Development Gary
Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards Vickie Schleuning,
and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
UNFUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS
City Manager Curt Boganey explained that at the last meeting, the City Council/EDA had
prioritized projects. He explained how the projects were then ranked with the following net
result:
Project Points
Amphitheater 15
2014 Capital Maintenance Building Plan 15
Street Reconstruction 15
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor 10
Council Chambers Technology 9
2015-2025 Capital Maintenance Building Plan 8
Community Center Renovations 8
City Hall Renovations 7
Highway 252 Improvements 6
Doors/Windows Community Center/City Hall 4
Mr. Boganey stated the estimated funding needs were considered over the next eight years, as
shown in Chart 1, with no specific costs identified for the four lowest priority projects. He stated
Chart 2 identifies various sources of funding that are potentially available compared with the
estimated costs. Mr. Boganey stated Chart 3, includes an estimate of uncommitted balances that
would be available December 31, 2013, and can be used for a purpose the City Council/EDA
deems appropriate. It is recommended the funds be used for a similar purpose for which the
funds were originally collected.
09/09/13 -1- DRAFT
Mr. Boganey reviewed all estimated fund balances, noting it is estimated there will be $7.2
million available to fund needed projects. Mr. Boganey stated the demand for 2014 is $4.9
million, leaving a balance of $2,277,166 going forward. He noted the chart identifies and
estimates using one-half of the LGA ($650,000) each year for the following three years, and
keeping excess tax increment at $200,000 since it ends in 2021. Also included are cable fees at
$26,000 per year. Mr. Boganey noted TIF District #3 is generating significantly more revenue
than was earlier estimated and over the next three years, the City can use these amounts through
a budget amendment for the Brooklyn Boulevard Project. Mr. Boganey stated the net result is
that it will cash flow through 2020 assuming four years of LGA.
Mr. Boganey indicated that should the bonds not be sold until 2014 (available in 2015), the
projections identify that six years of LGA would then be needed to make it cash flow. He stated
this analysis assumes a fund balance of $300,000 and the estimates for revenues are fairly
conservative.
Mr. Boganey stated if the City Council/EDA supports this process, he would recommend it adopt
a City Policy to assure these funds are set aside for these specific purposes.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan indicated his support for this option, noting this plan
identifies needs (not wants) and outlines a roadmap for funding.
Mayor/President Willson stated the current Legislature has authorized LGA through 2016 so he
does not expect it will be received in 2017 but perhaps it can be made up during the three years
prior. In addition, the City Council/EDA will need to be cautious about any un-allotment by the
Legislature.
Councilmember/Commissioner Kleven asked about the projection for a new water treatment
plant. Mr. Boganey stated it was not included because if constructed, it will use Water Utility
Funds.
Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson asked for the definition of an Improvement
Sinking Fund. Interim Finance Director Greg Andrews stated an Improvement Sinking Fund is a
debt service fund to pay off bonds. The City collects taxes to pay the debt but is allowed by
State Law to levy in excess of the bonds to cover taxes/assessments that are not paid. This has
resulted in generating excess revenues. It is the City's practice that when the bonds are retired
the surplus that may have accumulated is rolled off to the next maturing debt service fund.
Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she supports this proposal.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated should LGA go away, it is not an unmanageable
amount to make up. Mr. Boganey concurred, noting the estimates are conservative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated her support for this proposal and time put
into reviewing this by the City Council/EDA and staff. She commented on a recent StarTribune
article relating to increasing housing values and disappointment that it included a comment that
Brooklyn Center's values are still pretty low.
09/09/13 2 DRAFT
The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to support the funding proposal for capital
projects and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at a future City
Council meeting.
Mr. Boganey asked if there was City Council/EDA support to consider revisions to the
Community Center/City Hall.
Councilmember/Commissioner Kleven stated support to consider renovations first to the
Community Center.
Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated support to first address the roof, wall,
and amphitheater, and then prioritize the larger projects.
The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to support further consideration of
renovations to the City Hall/Community Center.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember/Cornmissioner Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember/Commissioner
Kleven seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work
Session at 9:55 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
09/09/13 -3- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
SPECIAL SESSION
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013
CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1.CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Special Session and was called to order by Mayor Tim
Willson at 5:05 p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin
Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Finance
Director Greg Andrews, and Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community
Standards Vickie Schleuning.
3. REVISED PRELIMINARY BUDGET ITEMS
City Manager Curt Boganey asked the Council to consider resolutions approving the Preliminary
Tax Capacity Levy to meet the State requirements.
Interim Finance Director Greg Andrews provided information as stated in the PowerPoint. The
resolutions being considered to revise the preliminary budget items include the maximum levy
limit for property taxes payable 2014 being revised to be in compliance with State requirements.
This involves modifying General Fund revenues and expenditures to provide a balanced budget :
In order to accomplish this, Local Government Aid is increased for operations, excess tax
increment for operations is increased, the General Fund contingency is eliminated, Police and
Fire pension contributions per State Law are increased, and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) Levy is increased. The revised maximum Preliminary Levy is due to Hennepin
County by September 16, 2013.
The HRA Levy can be increased due to the most recent market value calculations from Hennepin
County. They are higher than the previously reported values. The final debt payment for Police
and Fire bonds is in 2013. After adding Local Government Aid (LGA) and subtracting special
levy then multiplied by three percent you get the total maximum 2014 Preliminary Property Tax
Levy of $15,315,880. The difference is that the starting certified levy amount should have been
$13,632,000, then factor out LGA.
09/13/13 -1- DRAFT
For 2014, the levy is the 2013 amount plus the abatement for Embassy Suites and possible levy
to service public service bonds for the street improvements. Funds can be passed on from HRA
to the Economic Development Authority (EDA). The results are 0.36% versus the 3.5%
originally calculated. C3 column is proposed this evening. This is proposing the levy to the
maximum, which means the levy cannot exceed this amount.
The projected City property tax change for taxes payable in 2014 is less for all categories than
the original version. In the previous version, a median value single family residential home saw
a decrease of 8.85 percent increase, while the commercial, industrial, and apartments increased
approximately 5 percent increase. In the revised version, a median value single family
residential home on average will see an 11 percent decrease. The commercial, industrial, and
apartments will see an increase of 2.6 percent and 2.5 percent.
1.RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY TAX CAPACITY LEVY
FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS AND A
MARKET VALUE TAX LEVY FOR THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE
IN 2014
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2013-113 Approving a Preliminary Tax Capacity Levy for the General Fund and Debt
Service Funds and a Market Value Tax Levy for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for
Property Taxes Payable in 2014. Motion passed unanimously.
2.RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR THE 2014
FISCAL YEAR
Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to
adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2013-114 Adopting a Preliminary Budget for the 2014 Fiscal Year.
Councilmember Ryan stated that staff had done a good job proposing a solution; and the Mayor
expressed he had concerns about the capital budget and LGA use. Motion passed unanimously.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded adjournment of
the City Council meeting at 5:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.
09/13/13 -2- DRAFT
City Council Agenda Item No. 6b
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 17, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk g_
SUBJECT: •Licenses for City Council Approval
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses at its
September 23, 2013.
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
Air Comfort Heating & A/C
Commercial Plumbing & Heating
Kleve & JC Mechanical
MN Plumbing & Appliance
PBS
Residential Heating & Air
RENTAL
See attached report.
SIGN HANGER
Aero, Inc. dba Arrow Fence & Sign
Elements
Sign A Rama
VE0 Sign
19170 Jasper Street NW, Anoka
24428 Greenway Avenue, Forest Lake,
12907 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie
14105 Rutgers Street NE, Prior Lake
9410 Bataan Street NE, Blaine
1815 East 41 st Street, Minneapolis
18607 Highway 65 NE, Cedar
10044 Flanders Court, Blaine
5640 West Broadway, Crystal
6353 Martin Avenue NE, Otsego
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria
License Category
(Based on Property
Code Only)
Number of Units Property Code Violations per
Inspected Unit
Type I — 3 Year
Type II —2 Year
Type III — 1 Year
1-2 units
3 units
1-2 units
3+ units
1-2 units
3+ units
0-1
0-0.75
Greater than 1 but not more than 4
Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1
Greater than 4 but not more than 8
Greater than 1.5 but not more than
Type IV —6 Months 1-2 units
3+ units.
Greater than 8
Greater than
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
Rental License Category Criteria Policy — Adopted by City Council 03-08-10
License
Category
Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct
Service & Part I Crimes
(Calls Per Unit/Year)
No Category
Impact
1-2 0-1
3-4 units 0-0.25
5 or more units 0-0.35
Decrease 1
Category
1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3
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
Categories
1-2 Greater than 3
3-4 units Greater than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.50
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
•■,......./
a)a.>-
--==>->>->
- C a.)eL
UJH
======-====-==
o u_a_ u
<..........<,....._zzzzz
<.........<.....,<.....„0 o o c)co o o o
a)v)C CUa)0.
:3 I-
======-====--==
I.-
CU
-Ct
CU
4ra.
-0
- -a) co-toL.. oa. u 5
N .71-LCD •zr o cn 0 N CO N 00 0 0 cr N
c
0coE..c
,..)CaN--a-)
>0-1
(1)_,-'-,a•-
..cco0-5d1
>-
•co
-6>,-J
Era
opa
0
0
>.
ci3
oa."0,o
(1-)CLLa0,_
CI.
=
raE:-11.1v)
4gEn. _t-ci::,>
UJ
■an,
if(1)0-2a.
--inc.--co2
aca=aa)0.
Cl-
0a.4_,4-,0L(7;
t)-°c:3,c-)
N
40Ca)I-L-a
c
-I5=
c
.—
acoEcu0U
.03
=
E --,
-5*s.-:CCa)
C..r,V)2,
'a-3"c132
a)c>••co
o
-oCcoTliE-a-,
.--s1-L._0>(1)1!--:
Cr)
o4,0as..--,-F,u
a)E•-1---ao
o
CP.;
Z
0•L.)
ci•
C .
CUU
4.1
CGJ
QJ s....
CL 0 C-
.-------Ca
-C-
co
-C-
CO
CC-
SS
--
re3
CUCa)CC
co
CDCCUCC
03
WcCUCC
co
W
CUCC
CO
(I)
CUCC
CO
Cll
CUCC
CCCCCCC
RI
(1)
CUCC
RS
W
CUCC
RI
(L)
aiCC
CO
W
CUCC
tü
cu
0 H
U..
a)00
7)
.>.
coL.L.
a)br)
rii
.>,
COU..
a)00
7)
CCCCCCCC
.>-
COU.-
a)00
)
EEEEEEE
.>.
COLL
CU00
(1)
.>.
COLL
CU00
iii
.>.
COLL
a)00
'CA
(1:3U.,
a)00
Z7i
.>,
COLL
CUttO
17)
.>-
COLL
0.)00
7)
.>,
COLL
CU
ttO
tii
EEEEEEE
CCCCCCC
.>-
COLL
Cl.)
tia
7)
.>-
COLL
CUtx0
V)
.>.•
COLL
CU00
Z)
.>-
COLL
CU0.0
*-(?)-
L
-0-0<
w
a0s-.a.
-o..c
04'N.
M
,71-coUl
Z
>CU<-5.r..-.
1:3-<-C.
if),-I%-tL0
z
cu><c0,,etELLI
r•-•0.-1LO
zcu><a)
c2,
(c),-1d-Up
Za)><=a;=Cf
0071-Ln
za)><.0Ac.0
to0Nu-)
1:3>Faa,:-.,02CO
r-i0u-)u-)
zcu><
4E-'(.0
CO
c.0r-to
?...-6
z><x
Uoo0di-u-)
zcu><
mUtcr.)di-
N.
Eli
2
<(t,
0,"c3C
(.00.1-LD
C <
z
'
xS•"
C),--1toU)
Za)
> a cco`'-'1"3
Nc-I1--•11)
Z
8=
cu2
Mcl-d-to
,,,...,
(>)<
=Cf0071-t.0
s-Ca
>-
N
CL
City Council Agenda Item No. 6c
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 17, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Application and Permit for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Submitted by City
of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation for an Event to be Held at Surly Brewing
Company, 4811 Dusharme Drive, Brooklyn Center, on October 26, 2013
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the application and permit for a
temporary on-sale liquor license submitted by City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation for an event
to be held at Surly Brewing Company, 4811 Dusharme Drive, on October 26, 2013.
Background:
City of Lakes Nordic Ski Foundation has submitted an application and permit for temporary on-
sale liquor license for an event to be held at Surly Brewing Company, 4811 Dusharme Drive, on
October 26, 2013.
The applicant has satisfied the City's requirements, submitted the $25 fee for each day of the
license, along with a certificate of coverage for liquor liability insurance, and has existed as a
non-profit organization for at least three years. The applicant will meet with the Police
Department to review and discuss parking, safety, and security issues. After Council review, the
application and permit will be forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol
and Gambling Enforcement Division for approval.
City Ordinance Section 11-107 (6)
Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. This license may be issued only
upon receiving the approval from the Commissioner of Public Safety. The license may
be issued only in connection with a social event within the city that is sponsored by a
club or charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization that has existed for at least
three years or to a brewer who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a
year. The license may authorize the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the
Premises for not more than three consecutive days, and the City shall issue no more than
twelve days' worth of temporary licenses to any one organization or for any one location
within a 12-month period. The temporary license may authorize the sale of intoxicating
liquor to be consumed on Premises other than Premises the licensee owns or permanently
occupies. The temporary license may provide that the licensee may contract for
intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License issued by any municipality.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quail°, of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Minnesota Department of Public Safety
ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
444 Cedar Street Suite 222, St. Paul MN 55101-5133
(651) 201-7507 Fax (651) 297-5259 TTY (651) 282-6555
WWW.DPS.STATE.MN.US
APPLICATION AND PERMIT
FOR A 1 TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE
TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION
NAME OF ORGANIZ
eick
TION
rVN
,et A,
DATE ORGANIZED
`7o a -2_,
TAX EXEMPT NUMBER
4 ris— sV8D-
STREET ADDRESS
P7 ,) i —Tke_o3ovil 9 U) V\
CITY
\kko
BUSINESS
v12)
TYPE OF ORG
CLUB CHAP43ABLE
PHONE' cs-3"
IZATION
k
STATE
I
RELIGIOUS
HOME
qi (2)
ZIP COD
PHONEV
OTHER NONPROFIT
L 1 i2 ii NAME OF PERSON MAKING APPLICATION I
c i (Af\VA v\\,),,,,,,,y2..„ , „,)( 0
,__( • v,
DATES LIQUOR WILL BkISOLD 1 _. h-V...)L, ( ( —5
ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAMEiLe---1(-- 61 kt( (9,,LA
ADDRESS
c--;',-327 \kkolAti A-0 &C,,, 1m ''S.1
ADDRESS
? ' lo ) V\Ai 07% ii kt E is
ORGANIZATION OFFICER' NAME
S C/04— \ (---1•WiA
ORGANIZATIO OFFICER'S NAME
cgiA (cao,-,,,-
ADDRESS
Wu ativ--t- ,A--,. ki , 6UkJLA.
Location license will be used. If an outdoor ea, describe
Sk ii/(k -\R-ilk-P A) .,A ''g il,i2,AL-. (M_ i
\ 1 ).1— qp/N , skubcc., rtyv,4 POA1(---1 - (A,_ 0/4
,
Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor service? If so, give the name and address of the liquor -licensee providing the service.
• li . _ /2 I AL A --1 _
Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance? If so, please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage.
APPLICATION
/CITY COUNTY
CITY FEE
DA FEE
"AilLti.lit
MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY
g ro r,y..\,..,0 eenw
APPROVAL
ENFORCEMENT
BEFORE SUBMITTING
DATE APPROVED
LICENSE DATES
TO ALCOHOL & GAMBLING
AMOUNT 4 Rs . ob
PAID
IF
-11_4 LAA_Atflk
SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAL APPROVED DIRECTOR ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT
NOTE: Submit this form to the city or county 30 days prior to event. Forward application signed by city and/or county to the address
above. If the application is approved the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division will return this application to be used as the License for the event
PS-09079 (12/09)
Information is collected to determine eligibility for license. Failure to provide information requested
may result in denial of appli atisn.
City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 55430-2199
(763) 569-3300
Account No. 10100-4201
Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Application Addendum
License Fee of $25 per day must be submitted to City Clerk with application
Temporary Liquor License Fees are Non-Refundable
Application Must Be Submitted 55 Days Prior to Event; City Council Approval Required
Pursuant to City Code Section 11-107, Subdivision 6: The license may be issued only in connection with a social event within the city that
is sponsored by a club or charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization that has existed for at least three years.
Information on Contact Person:
Name: 1/1A0■PC
(First, Middle, and Last)
Address: C
(Street, City, and Zip Code)
Cot ?
(Work Telephone Number)(Home Telephone Number)
Information on Event:
Name of Event:
Location of Event: -
(Street, ity, and Zip d
Dates (s) and Time (s) of Event
Date Start time of event .,End time of event
Day 1 (64-•-2,6 -t-v-.From:D 024./p.m.To:
Day 2 From:a.m./p.m.To:a.m./p.m.
Day 3 From:a.m./p.m.To:a.m./p.m.
Day 4 From:a.mip.m.To:a.m./p.m.
Security for Event (explain in detail how you will ensure no underage sales or consumption, how the
area will be secured, i.e. by fence, rop , barricade) 1,■/
Insuijince Requirement: Brooklyn Center requires proof of $300,000 dram shop liquor liability
insurance with the City of Brooklyn Center named as an additional insured. This should be in the form
of a certificate of insurance. However, if your event is being held on City property, such as a City park,
you are required to have proof of $500,000 dram shop liquor liability insurance with the City of
Brooklyn Center named as an additional insured.
City Council Agenda Item No 6d
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 23, 2013
Curt Boganey, City Manager
Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development
Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modification
of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3, and the Adoption of a Modification to
Tax Increment Financing Plan
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of the Resolution Calling for
a Public Hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and
Redevelopment Project No. 1, Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 3, and the
Adoption of a Modification to Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Background:
On August 26, 2013, the City Council/EDA considered the opportunity to acquire land
within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor and the Opportunity Site with funds from Tax
Increment Financing District No 3. The direction of the City Council was to proceed with
the negotiations to acquire both properties and the necessary amendment to the TIF 3
Finance Plan.
This resolution begins the formal process of amending the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for TIF District No. 3 by calling a public hearing for the November 12, 2013 City Council
Meeting.
Springsted Financial is in the process of preparing the budget amendment, the required
advance notification to our County Commissioner, and the necessary financial data that will
be included in the Plan amendment and forwarded to Hennepin County and the four School
Districts 30 days prior to the public hearing.
A work session item is planned for the October 14th City Council/EDA meeting to review
the following components of this formal budget amendment:
an updated projection of the TIF 3 revenue stream through 2021,
increasing the Housing Account line item to reflect the 15% allocation of annual Tax
Increment received, and
maximizing the EDA's opportunity to use available funds for eligible land
acquisitions and capital improvement projects.
_
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive conutzunitv that enhances tire quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
COUNCIL ITEM MEMO A NDUM
Tax Increment Finance District No. 3
Tax Increment District No. 3 was established in 1994 through special legislation which
enabled the creation of this scattered site redevelopment district involving 221 parcels
within the Brooklyn Boulevard/69th Ave. Area, the Brookdale Area, and the Willow
Lane/Hwy 252 area for the following purposes:
•To enhance the tax base of the City,
To provide maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City for
development by private enterprise,
•To better utilize vacant or underdeveloped land,
•To attract new businesses,
To acquire blighted or deteriorated residential property for rehabilitation or
clearance and redevelopment,
•To develop housing opportunities for market segments underserved by the City
including housing for the disabled and elderly.
A provision within the special state legislation required that 15% of the annual tax
increment revenues be deposited into a housing development account established by the
Authority and expended according to the tax increment financing plan.
The District received its first increment in 1996 and is scheduled to close in 2021.
Proposed Amendment to Tax Increment Finance District No. 3
The following private development activities and City Council actions are projected to increase
the potential tax increment received by TIF District No. 3 to approximately $61 M:
the development of the FBI Regional Headquarters,
the removal of the Brookdale Mall properties from the District,
-the new tax capacity captured by the Luther Honda and Toyota Dealership,
the additional tax capacity projected from the Volkswagen Dealership, and
-the removal of the 57th & Logan Avenue site and the former Brookdale Ford sites.
This amendment will update the tax increment projected to be received through 2021;
increase the Housing Account to accurately reflect 15% of the projected increment; and to
increase the budget's line items for land acquisition and public capital improvements.
Budget Issues:
The TIF Plan Amendment being prepared will identify the fiscal affects that the budget
amendment will have on the City, School District, and County.
Additionally, the amendment will enable the EDA to use eligible tax increment funds for public
improvement projects; such as the Brooklyn Boulevard improvements identified in the City's
Capital Improvement Plan.
Strategic Priorities:
•Focused Redevelopment
,
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean. safe, inclusive COMMIlnio , that enhances tlw quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Modification of a Tax Increment Financing Plan for
Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 3
Proposed Schedule of Events
Schedule of Events
Date Event Responsible Party
September— October Drafting of TIF Plan Modification City, Kennedy & Graven,
Springsted
Modification of TIF Plan
Monday
September 23 2013, City Council adopts resolution calling for Public Hearing Springsted & Kennedy &
Graven
Friday
September 27, 2013
County Commissioner receives notification letter
Springsted(at least 30 days prior to publication of notice of public hearing)
Prior to Thursday
October 10, 2013
County and School District receive impact letters & draft TIF plan modification
Springsted(at least 30 days prior to public hearing)
Thursday
October 31, 2013
Deadline: Oct. 24
Publication of notice of public hearing in Brooklyn Center Sun Post
(10-30 days prior to public hearing)
City and Kennedy &
Graven
Thursday,
October 31, 2013 Planning Commission reviews and adopts resolution City, Kennedy & Graven,
Springsted
Tuesday,
November 12, 2013
City Council holds public hearing, and adopts resolution modifying TIF Plan and
TIF District
City, Kennedy & Graven,
Springsted
After
November 12, 2013 State and County filing Springsted
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1,
MODIFICATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 3,
AND THE ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING PLAN
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on November 12, 2013, at
approximately 7:00 P.M., to hold a public hearing on a proposed modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Modification") and the
proposed modification of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 3 (a Redevelopment District) (the "TIF District") (the "TIF Plan Amendment"), pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended.
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff and consultants are
directed and authorized to prepare the Modification and TIF Plan Amendment and to forward such
documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions, including Hennepin County and Independent
School District No. 286 (Brooklyn Center) and Independent School District No. 281 (Robbinsdale).
The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing in substantially the form
attached as Exhibit A hereto, together with an appropriate map as required bylaw, to be published at
least once in the official newspaper of the City not less than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to
November 12, 2013, and to place a copy of the Modification and TIF Plan Amendment on file in the
City Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public.
September 23, 2013
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.
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on November 12, 2013, at
approximately 7:00 P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Single Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
relating to the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Housing
Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and the
proposed adoption of a Modification to Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan Amendment")
for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 (a Redevelopment District) (the "TIF District"), pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, 469.090 to 469.1082 and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. Copies
of the Redevelopment Plan Modification and TIF Plan Amendment are on file and available for
public inspection at the office of the Director of Business and Development at City Hall.
The TIF District is located within Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the City of Brooklyn Center. A map of Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1
and the TIF District is set forth below. Subject to certain limitations, tax increment from the TIF
District may be spent on eligible uses within the boundaries of Housing Development and
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
[INSERT MAP of Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1,
and Tax Increment Financing District No. 3]
All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their Views orally or prior to
the meeting in writing.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,
MINNESOTA
City Clerk
■t-II
ir IBM
TIF 3 Area
Project Area Boundary
CityBorder
05025
Miles
City of
BROOKLYN
CENTER Created by: Brooklyn Center Business and Development Dept/GIS
Document Path: LAUsers ComDev \TIFareas \TIF3ProPosed.mxd
2
51 [1=Liltii;=-122p5
F.9 11 1 1 III I I 1
7 I
Cv
7615:3.3n0
U-A5 rrA3 ac,,,ges Nat e-A C41.1. VA
.1),C4frern ar.1 ch, 'A U
■
Irti UM, [19 na°yafrhrinvent and
Redeve[lopment Pro'ect la 0'
?ruled Areas
City Council Agenda Item No. 6e
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 23, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist
THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development Ae.
SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release Request — Planning Commission Application
Nos. 97011 and 97012 — Holiday Station-Store and River Road Dental Offices
[420 - 66 th Avenue North and 512 - 66 th Avenue North, respectively]
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve the release of the remaining site performance
guarantee held by the city for completion of various site improvements, in conjunction with site
improvements made to the combined Holiday as station store and River Road Dental offices,
located at 420 - 66 th Avenue North and 512 - 66 th Avenue North.
Background:
On October 27, 1997, the City Council approved Planning Application Nos. 97011, which
approved the site and building plans for a new 4,232 sq. ft. Holiday Station and 1,080 sq. ft. car
wash. That same night, the Council also approved Planning Application No. 97012, the 5,400
sq. ft. office building for River Road Dental.
Approvals included certain conditions, one of which related to the posting of a financial
guarantee by Holiday Station-Stores, Inc. (and on behalf of River Road Dental), by means of a
Performance Bond in the amount of $30,000.00. This Performance Bond (Bond No. 5866788)
was issued by Safeco Insurance Company of America for the benefit of the City; which was held
by the City to ensure completion of various site improvements, including an as-built survey.
On September 4, 2013, city staff received from Holiday Station-Store representatives a
completed 2013 as-built survey. This survey was reviewed and found to be acceptable by the
Public Works Department. City staff collectively supports and recommends the Council release
Holiday Stationstores, Inc. from this bond obligation; whereupon this release, the original bond
will be returned to the issuer, Safeco Insurance Company/Holiday Station-Stores, Inc.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues t6 consider.
Council Goals:
Ongoing:
5. We will improve the image of the City with citizens and others
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust
0.Adi 0
L.M. Davis, Attorney-in-Fact
BY:
Bond # 5866788
PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That we,
HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES, INC. as Principal, and SAtECO INSURANCE COMPANY.OF
AMERICA
, as Surety,
are held and firmly bound onto the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA as Obligee
(hereinafter called the "City"), in a sum not to exceed Thirty Thousand dollars ($30,000.00)
lawful money of the United States of America we hereby jointly and severally bind ourselves and
each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THES OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Principal has entered into an agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center,
Minnesota for planned improvements and development of property located at 512 66 th Avenue
North in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Principal will make all improvements and other work set forth in accordance
with said agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall fully and faithfully perform all the work specified by
said agreement, in accordance with the plans, specifications and provisions of said agreement,
then this obligation shall be void; otherwise it is to remain in full force and effect in law.
The City is the sole Obligee under this Bond, and no other party is intended to be benefited by the
provisions hereof.
IN WITHNESS WHEREOF, the Principal and the Surety have caused this Bond to be duly
executed this 9th day of July , 1998.
HOLIDAY STATIONST(fl INC.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
SAFECO°
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY SURETY
STATE OF Minnesota
SS.County of Dakota
On this 9th day of July 1998 , before me personally,
appeared L. M. Davis , known to, me to be the Attorney-in-Fact of
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, FIRST NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA or SAFECO NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY , the corporation
that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same.
IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, at my office in the aforesaid County, the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
L t3L C it_ bLe_
Notary Public in the State of Minnesota
(Seal)
County of Scott
PATRICIA RENN EKE
NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA
My Commission Expires Jan. 31.2000
S-0230/SAEF 6/96
Beth a Registered trademark of SAFECC
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE SAFECO PLAZA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185
POWER
OF ATTORNEY
SAFECO®
No. 3212
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington
corporation, does each hereby appoint
uuuuuuuununuuiu,iu L. M. DAVIS utitiNNKIIKUPIltd$11111sitturaumoutituuusasssumu.nuaustustunuMNPItlitsnun
its true and lawful attorney(s)-in -fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other
documents of a similar character issued in the course of its business, and to bind the respective company thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each
executed and attested these presents
this 4th day of January . 19 93 .
CERTIFICATE
Extract frcm the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA:
"Article V. Section 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BDNDS ... the President, any Vice President, the Secretary, and any Assistant Vice
President appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations, shall each have authority to appoint individuals as
attorneys-in-fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to execute on behalf of the ccmpany fidelity and surety bonds and
other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business .. . On any instru -nent making or evidencing
such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking
of the company. the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however,
that the seal shall not be necessary to the validity of any such instnxnent or undertaking."
Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28, 1970.
"On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out,
(i)The provisions of Article V. Section 13 of the By-Laws, and
(ii)A copy of the power -of-attorney appointment, executed pursuant thereto. and
(iii) Certifying that said power-of-attorney appointment is in full force and effect,
the signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof."
I. R. A. Pierson. Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
do hereby certify that the foregoing extracts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and
of a Power of Attorney issued pursuant thereto, are true and correct, and that both the By-Laws, the Resolution and the Power of
Attorney are still in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of said corporation
9th Julythis day of . 19 98 .
5-974/EP 1/93 0 Registered trademark of SAFECO Corporation.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND INSPECTION
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER •
PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT
FILE NO. 97012
This Agreement is entered into by Holiday StationStores, Inc. hereinafter called the Developer and
the City of Brooklyn Center, a Municipal Corporation, under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereafter called the City.
THE WORK
The Developer has received approval of its Development Plans by the City Council of the City (pursuant to City
Ordinances), subject to the execution of this Performance Agreement, pursuant to the City Council approval of
October 27, 1997 and in accordance with said Development Plans all of which are made a part hereof by
reference. In consideration of such approval, the Developer, its successors and assigns, does covenant and agree to perform
the work as set forth in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval, and as hereinafter set forth, upon the real estate
described as follows: Lot 2, Block. 1, Holiday Brooklyn Center Addition (512 66th Ave No) .
The Work will consist of the improvements described in the Development Plans, in the aforesaid Approval (to
include any approved subsequent amendments) and will be in compliance with all applicable Statutes, codes and Ordinances
of the City. The cost of the improvements is estimated to be $50,000
COMPLETION DATE
The undersigned Developer agrees that the said Work will be completed in its entirety on or before the 1st
day of July 1999, and no extension of time will be valid unless the same will be approved in writing by the City
Manager. Said extension of time will be valid whether approved by the City Manager before or after the completion date
and failure of the City to extend the time for completion or to exercise other remedies hereunder will in no way work a
forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder, nor will any extension of time actually granted by the City Manager work any
forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder. It will be the duty of the Developer to notify the City of completion of the Work at
least 10 days prior to the Completion Date and to call for final inspection by employees of the City.
MAINTENANCE
The Performance Agreement, in its entirety, will remain in full force and effect for a period of one year after actual
completion of the Work to determine that the useful life of all Work performed hereunder meets the average standard for
the particular industry, profession, or material used in the performance of the Work. Any work not meeting such standard
will not be deemed complete hereunder. Notice of the date of Actual Completion will be given to the Developer by the
Director of Community Development of the City.
FINANCIAL GUARANTEE
The developer agrees to furnish the City with a Financial Guarantee in the form of a cash escrow, a bond issued by•an -upprOved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and executed by the Developer as principal,•. • .or other Financial Guarantee as approved by the City Manager of the City, in the amount of $ $30,000 . Such Financial
Guarantee will continue ni full force and effect until the City Council will have by motion approved and accepted all of the
„ . •Work undertaken to be done,- and will thereby have released the Surety and/or Developer from any further liability; .
praVded hOwelier, that the:City'dOuncil may by motion reduce the amount of the Financial Guarantee upon partial
completion of the work;uS certified by the City Manager.. Such Financial Guarantee will be conditioned upon the full and
faithful Perforniui0O-Fall'Clthents of this Agreement and upon compliance with all applicable Statutes, codes, and
Ordinances 'Untie City, and will further be subject to the following provision's which will be deemed to be incorporated in
such Financial Gitarvitee and made a part thereof.
NOTICE
The City will be required to give prior notice to the corporate surety and the Developer of any default hereunder
before proceeding to enforce such Financial Guarantee or before the City undertakes any work for which the City will be
reimbursed through the Financial Guarantee. Within ten (10) days after such notice to it, the surety will notify the City in
writing of its intention to enforce any rights it might have under this Performance Agreement or any Performance Bond by
stating in writing the manner in which the default will be cured and the time within which such default will be cured, said
time not to exceed sixty (60) days unless approved by the City.
Performance Agreement pg. 1
Revised 4-98
REMEDIES FOR BREACH
At any time after the Completion date and any extensions thereof, or during the Maintenance Period, if any of the work is
deemed incomplete, the City Council may proceed in any one or more of the following ways to enforce the undertakings herein sr
forth, and to collect any and all overhead expenses incurred by the City in connection therewith, including but not limited to
engineering, legal, planning and litigation expenses, but the enumeration of the remedies hereunder will be in addition to any other
remedies available to the City.
1)Completion by the City. The City, after notice, may proceed to have the Work done either by contract, by day labor, or
by regular City forces, and neither the Developer nor the Corporate Surety may question the manner of doing such work
or the letting of any such contract for the doing of any such work. Upon completion of such Work the Surety and/or the
Developer will promptly pay the city the full cost thereof as aforesaid. In the event that the Financial Guarantee is in the
form of a Performance Bond, it will be no defense by the Surety that the City has not first made demand upon the
Developer, nor pursued its rights against the Developer.
2)Specific Performance. The City may in writing direct the Surety or the Developer to cause the Work to be undertaken and
completed within a specified reasonable time. If the Surety and/or the Developer fails to cause the Work to be done and
completed in a manner and time acceptable to the City, the City may proceed in an action for Specific Performance to
require such work to be undertaken.
3)Deposit of Financial Guarantee. In the event that the Financial Guarantee has been submitted in the form of a Performance
Bond, the City may demand that the Surety deposit with the City a sum equal to the estimated cost of completing the work,
plus the City's estimated overhead expenses as defined herein, including any other costs and damages for which the Surety
may be liable hereunder, but not exceeding the amount set forth on the face of the Performance Bond, which money will
be deemed to be held by the City for the purpose of reimbursing the City for any costs incurred in completing the Work as
hereinbefore specified, and the balance will be returned to the Surety. This money will be deposited with the City within
ten (10) days, the City will have the right to proceed against the Surety with whatever legal action is required to obtain the
deposit of such sum.
4)Funds on Deposit. In the event that the Financial Guarantee is in the form of cash, certified check, or other arrangement
making,* Financial Guarantee immediately accessible to the City, the City may, after notice to the Developer, deposit the
Financial Guarantee in its General Account. The City may then proceed to complete the Work, reimburse itself for the
cost of completion as defined hereunder, and return the balance to the Developer.
PROCEDURES
A copy of this Performance Agreement will be attached to the Corporate Surety Bond, if any, and reference to this
Performance Agreement will be made in any such bond, but no corporate surety will assert as a defense to performance hereunder,
any lack of reference in the bond to this Performance Agreement.
The original and two copies of this Agreement, properly executed, together with the appropriate Financial Guarantee will
be submitted to the City.
1:7 EICuCtAif,i,r.,:stiv3E1
19 qW:
ate&
Witness tiOTAny PRASS
• SQTA,20vo
Witness
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
day of at.ao 19 9
/A-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City have executed this Agreement this day of
Zonin1 .0f/-KficialiC
Performance Agreement pg. 2
Revised 4-98
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
There are no materials for this item.
City Council Agenda Item No. 7b
ri7:151:1
ii
a MIL _
17 , --II]
c 0E 0 (3)rts 41 °Z NZ
L__
1.6) cno. al c•.......
a) c) cy) 0 " m1... c u u 4-)
O. ....c S.-- 0E rn
'''''' ''''''''
a= f-- 4..a a) 44 13 a
1 rl---. C 0ti) 0 c:3 ..., cov) r\i f..„i I >4 u-o -cuc4,-) .. 0 4-1>u tn 0 4--/ CU ..4=Q =
L) rtS (1) (..) Li-0 c
0 0 Li) 17,4 cri rd I" o L6,_ c3 , v cv 4...., %..-on U Z %*.--.1 0- n 4-) v)
U -
Lj
Lf)4J U
w 4) j)O)
I U
4.J>
0
(N=ç c 0
U
>< LU ._w
U
U
rr
m
4-0•
a) 7:13c
iir-.) 1- L/1 IRS) 0
a.) " "°L")) a) V) OSolv cc -.° c -c) u -4 Z 2Mt E .asE 4-9.= ':1)= a.) iii-
u "0 tris-0 =< 2 < 2 D- -J ra 0-
(t
ai s_
i+-. cr) c a)U a)
0 a) .— s._ Csp. a) 4-i —
V) ft 04--r-0 u ( " 01)
t-) C • - U C 4•+ E rti 0
rd c >, c c ...c E _O.., 4-, c... „ ..a a.) w 4-0 4-, u
" V) CIJ u .— i 0 U Zrt =0 (1) >, 0 0
--' 2 ct, f i --Ei 7.0. a) c +., Ct. ›— v) Li--
"0 I— V) E 1— er_0 >7.i— = 0 < E -6 v) c E a)
cn 4-7' oc s_ v
...c a5 57, a) rd4-, E --c • i_
(TS _0 0 0 CD 0 _.00 U
o
m a) 0 irT a E N E 2 a; ,,, 4-'v) 0 = U — 2 0,-0 c o c•— E CeCd d. 8CY-1 (I) Ce 5.= ,... >- z ,- o..r.-_, - c ._ rd a) ca _c (1.) 0 IA .(1) .__Z >,-_C
- 4-, -= a a) 62 6.7_0 ca) 4c-.8 .0 8 En. u,.. " (I) Ca)a)-0 4_,-0 = 4-) cij = 4-j, Zou0
•
rd 'E.* .V_ 0 0"
4E' rdc a ic r r9 5 r us= .i. 4_ = Fii- 0 v ) " 4 .>,■-rs:i.v C0 0- U 0 ,+-
a) ',.,;' o v) 0 4-' v.) -E = ,_ = Li— -c a)4-,
U >■(-) EM a 8 -(...) a mv,<4., wc -F_, n 00a)
(1) 2 `al ++s 4-o = -0_, o E s- rt:5 0 a) e-05) Ln .5014_, C >-. = .= la)
5 -0 E zu -0 6 rduca= .L,t.,i =,‹
-c-) 7'.— 0--Y• c 0 -a >a" ca.°•u>— 'E. 2_(1) (.11— 8 iz)oE04— E_ o 0 w -o 4-, = ra = 4-
Ln L.) .47' tA C aj 3 2 as ca
%V Q1- C " i 06 .) a) c w E ac 47 ') d'i(ii rd 1.-
E
al 7d tri t t:5'—'E 0 0a i cu
4-,— LA .^ 1_, a5•E cu v) ov) 0 .0Cd•--)c E In. cu i_ E in ii-,
4--,_, a) 6 ra 0-) — a' • - 0 -c u a) ...o_c -0 a) c a.) a)a..) ...., c a).2,,, a„ e) iz ,-, ft 0 c -c -c in ,_ c ra _ -0 0 a) c c4-,L..) >, = LA 0 — L) C 2 E u La ) Ur ti 4 - jZ . 5 = Ti) — (31 . c 7-3 V c cC .4e_ a) v) c o c O 4 = vs a) 0O- = ow cv = vs >, .— —
rd UMO<U nci U OM rd 0..1— >-< U en UZ 4_, u_ Z tr) 2 2
rd.— u0 4-J
< 0 < 0 0 _1 0 0 0 0 0 v) 0 0 0 0
ILL1 Ats.
.ets
DuNam -
suolici2eziud_ips.:p 2.__,
ilyi '.--=-' 7,1
111...a2.....= C..., 4=, 6-- •
.-;,.4122-poOdui .E,--'•--'.g - ---1 c„.= pallpm3 r-----7-n----- '
"ff,Minliekoul' 4
t3 -ffi migivitio3,3 _-....,
suirm-anni -g, E,...1 sT--- ti._ 11 C'') c=7:3 23 E.....p le3 .11 • _, ,
L____
L---17:-_-_-_-- - --i: Co`P E,s,p.,,,,,, _ , El „‘..)
: -- - 1 a-, 71' ' '------' I= MI INIMIIIIMI n ",==-11j=rvti gidel 771 SdRISHOPIM1
■_,-. LC6i2H—J '----- 2';,1 -LTI C--)3 2 VTI --`") 0310A I
c-t ■-1.----J V-- - —9T) if130J Et"[ ii - z --_-_„ ,_, 7---- --,,....,=g, ...,_- - -- ff-- ---=== -m
E ', - --.• E, cL, r.
.- ri1 -
_,-E CZ° CZ I '',= F=3. =r) r
q =7-71----/ C'" cct , 1.112=6261.--- ....
"21 1015111] - -- el* t=n 1 , , ig ••a. • 17 --, ,(_____)) C:i= 1= ,
CIO tm-• • •1 ,,, - soomond -- ,_--, __ •-•-• _
,....= HOIS11 31,1 ED- : EL:111I
..„ ar...." ..,r , - ..,, I
:ffitc2-4 U... Aisouoll — __... _
.. _.. ..,.
--b _a .=.4 Wistitai a-s o g 9 d s 1 a j - a 1 d llinii j c c I m = `-'7,.--P1!1,1110 aie.•■•• -0, 2 c=3 :71:
I I INt C., -74 --'--c_
Coo,
C=,
=IICC/
C=,
ilia
=
C
1- o 8
0.. 04—
...-:;.
cd —0:E 4-, tr) 1:3 t-) >v) c cu c 'Ea) L.) cd= 4-1a) E rc$ C
-0 >*' E curd 0.T:cu o= su E E D-
E 0 a) LE__I -07) < CY) v.)•> c i-7 U.v.) cd L-= cO0
CU
ai
.—
0 _C crS
.— Li—
0) (1)c -CS
= (1) -4---;0) u a) 4-'> =
4-J 4-, w as
c u a) 7 d' Es < .4_,— 0 0.) a)+-)
> = -0 'L7)' ›.- _C4_, 0-v) = -0Oc 0 = = cu 0 C
G)Ur o_ < <c >.- rd
4... .... ....
If EMMA=
vCL_
(L) a)
Lris- 7
v) ,...
I.
a) 4—
C
.0 c
rdV) 0
L7) 0
01
=
= —
0
rn 4Fc's
73 a.)
:,,E r .% .N v)
C 15al v).
C
, rd
......4-1
O )
c E 0
4-,
rd
TcS 2 '5
= cu 0
4-0 = 1..... a)
til clE) g tz,!.j
4-...)"
tAn
01 U
—,C
a) t..) co 4,-,
E as 0
c L._
4-,i
cy) L-. .-
rt:$ cl.) —
c
a)
rzi E L.1.-.
V)
C
C:3") 73 <
E
cm o '-
Lu L._ c
c 8 -0 cu
>
0 Li_ 0,.... L._0_ cu 1---iti
0,.a 0 0 --c3 :aLi—
0
Ci... k.)
-
E --c4...) tj
E 0 c3) rd cc c ›....
= cu 1_. E
4--4.,
▪
- c 4.-J
E -C3 a rd
" Cl" 0 .-0 a ' C
E LI—Li— "01
01,=, ai 476" =
0 LE) C) ctS 0
—, c 4-) 1_, rd
2 m E
U 0
v)
0 0
4r'' u u>" ov) Tcs E
0 . U0
A,
City Council Agenda Item No. 7c
There are no materials for this item.
City Council Agenda Item No. 7d
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities,
Recreation and Service
SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public
Service of Phil Cohen
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of a resolution recognizing
the dedicated public service of Phil Cohen.
Background:
Phil Cohen has submitted his letter of resignation from the Earle Brown Days Committee dated
September 9, 2013. Phil has served on the Earle Brown Days Committee since 1985 and has
been instrumental in supporting the annual Earle Brown Days civic celebration.
Phil has served on the board of directors for 28 years, playing an integral role in incorporating
the committee into an independent non-profit. He has consistently solicited monetary and
volunteer support for Earle.Brown Days events. His leadership, vision and involvement will be
deeply missed.
It is highly fitting the City Council recognize Phil and his contribution to the Earle Browns Days
Committee and to the community.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
Strategic Priorities:
• Civic Engagement
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for people and preserves the public trust
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR
THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF PHIL COHEN
WHEREAS, in 1985 Phil Cohen played an integral part in incorporating Earle Brown
Days; and
WHEREAS, Phil Cohen served on the Earle Brown Days Board of Directors from 1985
to 2013; and
WHEREAS, Phil Cohen served as the longtime chairman of the financial committee; and
WHEREAS, Phil Cohen built positive relationships between the business community
and Earle Brown Days resulting in Earle Brown Days receiving thousands of dollars in donations
over the years; and
WHEREAS, Phil Cohen believes the Earle Brown Days Festival gives opportunity for
the community to attend, participate and celebrate friendship and family fun; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit
the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service to the community should be
recognized and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that the dedicated public service of Phil Cohen is hereby recognized and
appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center.
September 23, 2013
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. 8a
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 23, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
C 5
FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community
Standards
SUBJECT: Continued Special Assessment Hearing for Proposed Special Assessments for
Delinquent Utility Bills
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the attached resolution certifying
special assessments for delinquent utility bills to the Hennepin County tax rolls.
Background:
At the City Council Meeting on September 9, 2013, the City Council moved to continue the
public hearing until September 23, 2013 for certain properties where appeals were made.
Additional information was requested for these properties where the proposed special
assessments are for delinquent utility bills.
Customers are provided quarterly utility bills. If accounts are not paid, a letter is sent to the
customer notifying them that their account is past due and that the amount will be certified
against their property taxes if not paid. Customers are given the opportunity to pay their
outstanding bill without additional penalty prior to this certification. Some customers respond to
this letter and pay their bills.
Customers that do not pay after the first letter receive a second letter indicating that their account
will be certified for collection with property taxes following a public hearing. This letter details
the process and legal authority for certification. The date, time and location for the public
hearing are included in this notice. Those customers that do not pay their account balances after
receipt of this letter are included in the final assessment roll.
Budget Issues:
The utility bill payments help cover the cost of providing and maintaining the city's public water
supply system.
Strategic Priorities:
• Financial Stability
Attachments:
- Resolution
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
- Recommended Amended Special Assessment Certified Roll
- Summary of Appealed Properties
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT
PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY
PROPERTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS, the records of the Utility Billing Division list certain accounts as
Delinquent as of June 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, certain delinquent accounts remained unpaid;
and
WHEREAS, the owners of the properties served by each delinquent accounthave
been notified of the delinquency according to legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 444.075 and 429.101, and City Ordinances
Sections 4-105 and 4-201 authorize certification of such delinquent accounts to the
County property tax rolls for collection; and
WHEREAS, a special assessment roll, a copy of which is attached hereto and
made part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties
where a delinquent public utility account is to be assessed with the amount, including interest
and service charges, to be assessed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessments for delinquent
utility service accounts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1.The special assessment roll of delinquent public utility accounts is hereby adopted
and certified as Levies No. 18408 and 18409 (bankruptcy).
2.The special assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem
taxes levied in 2014, in one installment with interest thereon at six (6.0) percent per
annum, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from October 1, 2013
through December 31, 2014.
2. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of
the assessments to the Hennepin County Auditor pay the entire assessment to the
City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before
October 10, 2013. From October 11, 2013, the owner may pay the entire assessment
RESOLUTION NO.
plus interest accumulated from October 11, 2013 through the date of payment. Such
payments must be made by the close of business on November 27, 2013 or interest
will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to
the Hennepin County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County,
and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
September 23, 2013
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.
00
00
71"
kr;
00
0")Cl-)
1/4.0
00
<71-
00
00
71-00
Attachment- Summary of Appealed Properties
Property Number 1
Address: 5305 Irving Ave N Owner: Musa M Manobah
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because he is not able
to afford the payment.
Findings:
The property owner has a delinquent utility bill of $225.47. The delinquent accounts have
been certified to property taxes in the past. Very few payments have been made to fully pay
the utility account. Please review the following payment and billing history for additional
information.
Created Date/Time: 09/10/2013 08:28:53 AM
Customer Number: 00042002
Account Number: 0073980002
Service Address: 5305 IRVING AVE N
Mailing Address:
MUSA IVIANOBAH
5305 IRVING AVE N
BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430-3047
City of Brooklyn CenterWater Depar1m=16301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113
Customer/Account Transaction History
Trans Date Transaction Amount Balance
8/21/2013 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 09/18/2013 $123.97 $378.99
8/2/2013 0:00 Certification Admin Fee $30.00 $255.02
7/22/2013 0:00 Payment - Check ($100.00)$225.02
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification -Water $120.65 $325.02
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Sewer $174.82 $204.37
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification Sewer ($174.82)$29.55
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Water ($120.65)$204.37
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $17,48 $325.02
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Water $12.07 $307.54
6/10/2013 0:00 Payment - Check ($150.00)$295.47
5/22/2013 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 06/19/2013 $123.97 $445.47
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $1.14 $321.50
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Water $8.75 $320.36
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties -Sewer $14.50 $311.61
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties -Storm Drainage $3.04 $297.11
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $1.80 $294.07
2/20/2013 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 03/20/2013 $125.25 $292.27
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.77 $167.02
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Water $5.62 $160.25
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.46 $154.63
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.84 $153.17
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.49 $152.33
11/21/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 12/19/2012 $128.12 $151.84
11/8/2012 0:00 Payment - Check ($75.00)$23.72
10/5/2012 0:00 Payment - Check ($60,00)$98.72
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $7,45 $158.72
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Water $3.91 $151.27
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.60 $147,36
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.93 $145.76
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0,54 $144.83
8/22/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 09/19/2012 $131.72 $144.29
7/23/2012 0:00 Payment - Check ($125.72)$12.57
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Sewer ($67.76)$138.29
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Water ($30.10)$206.05
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage ($14.48)$236.15
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Recycling ($8.43)$250.63
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Street Light ($4.95)$259.06
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Sewer $67,76 $264.01
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Water $30.10 $196,25
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Street Light $4.95 $166.15
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Recycling $8.43 $161.20
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage $14.48 $152.77
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.49 $138.29
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.84 $137.80
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1,46 $136,96
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties Water $3,01 $135.50
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.77 $132.49
5/23/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 06/20/2012 $125.72 $125.72
3/23/2012 0:00 Payment - Credit Card ($120.92)$0.00
2/22/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 03/21/2012 $120.92 $120.92
1/25/2012 0:00 Payment - Credit Card ($100.31)$0.00
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.26 $100.31
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0,40 $100.05
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $0.44 $99.65
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Water $6.07 $99.21
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $1.95 $93.14
11/23/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 12/21/2011 $39.19 $91.19
10/27/2011 0:00 Deposit Quote $52,00 $52.00
Property Number 2
Address: 5042 Ewing Ave N Owner: Wilfried Zehourou
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because he believes
that a portion of his bill is related to a leak caused by the street reconstruction project in 2010-
2011 .
Findings:
The City paid for the repair of the water sprinkler system (minor sprinkler head) that the
owner alleged occurred during a street reconstruction project. The owner did not contact the
City in a prompt manner to indicate additional concerns, even after being notified of an
unusual spike in the water usage. The delay in resolving the problem likely contributed to an
increased water usage and utility bill. There is no evidence that the street project was
associated with the later problems with the sprinkler irrigation system. The special
assessment amount is $488.48.
Please review the following payment and billing history for additional account information.
In addition a summary timeline related to the appeal is provided below:
O In 2010, the street reconstruction project was not completed, therefore carried over
into 2011 and completed mid-summer 2011.
O In August 2011, the homeowner of 5042 Ewing Ave paid an irrigation company to
blow his irrigation system out for the winter. At that time a sprinkler head was found
needing repair. The irrigation company repaired the sprinkler head and the City
agreed to pay for the minor repair ($29 for head repair).
O In mid-summer 2012, the City Utility Billing division notified the owner of a spike in
water usage. (The homeowner indicated to staff recently that he had shut his irrigation
system off (turned valve off), which fixed the spike in the water usage.)
•In September 2013, the homeowner came to City Hall to discuss his delinquent utility
bill. He expressed that he should be credited some portion of the water bill as he feels
the irrigation system issue that caused a spike in his water billing in 2012 was a result
of damage caused by the street reconstruction proj ect in 2010/2011. He also indicated
that he had an irrigation company make repairs to his system since the 2012 issue was
discovered, and he had shut his water valve off.
•The property owner has a delinquent utility bill of $488.48 after a $500.00 payment
was made on 09/09/2013.
Created Date/Time: 09/10/2013 08:31:58 AM
Customer Number: 00041208
Account Number: 0064610006
Service Address: 5042 EWING AVE N
Mailing Address:
WILFRIED ZEHOUROU
5042 EWING AVE N
BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429-3941
City of Brooklyn CenterWater Department6301,Shin' gie Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113
Customer/Account Transaction History
Trans Date Transaction Amount Balance
9/9/2013 0:00 Payment - Check ($500.00)$682.21
9/3/2013 0:00 Penalties - Street Light ($2.51)$1,182.21
9/3/2013 0:00 Penalties - Recycling ($3.96)$1,184.72
9/3/2013 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage ($6.72)$1,188.68
9/3/2013 0:00 Penalties - Sewer ($32.02)$1,195.40
9/3/2013 0:00 Penalties - Water ($50.64)$1,227.42
8171/2013 0-00 Cyrli flillin2 Due: (19/18/7011 1c7 fig
8/2/2013 0:00 Certification Admin Fee $30.00 $1,084.33
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Water $506.40 $1,054.33
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Water ($506.40)$547.93
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Street Light $25.07 $1,054.33
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Street Light ($25.07)$1,029.26
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Recycling $39.64 $1,054.33
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Recycling ($39.64)$1,014.69
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage $67.20 $1,054.33
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage ($67.20)$987.13
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Sewer $320.17 $1,054.33
6/27/2013 0:00 Certification - Sewer ($320.17)$734.16
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $2.51 $1,054.33
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $32.02 $1,051.82
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $3.96 $1,019.80
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $6.72 $1,015.84
6/26/2013 0:00 Penalties - Water $50.64 $1,009.12
5/22/2013 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 06/19/2013 $116.29 $958.48
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $2.81 $842.19
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $4.79 $839.38
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Water $44.52 $83439
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $1.74 $790.07
3/27/2013 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $22.70 $788.33
2/20/2013 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 03/20/2013$118.85 $765.63
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $1.77 $646.78
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $3.04 $645.01
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Water $38.72 $641.97
12/26/20120:00 Penalties - Street Light $1.04 $603.25
12/26/2012 0:00 Penalties -Sewer $14.23 $602.21
11/21/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 12/19/2012 $162.92 $587,9 8
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Water $29,08 $425.06
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.49 $395.98
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.78 $395.49
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.84 $388.71
9/26/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.45 $387,87
8/22/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 09/19/2012 $386.42 $386,42
7/19/2012 0:00 Payment - Credit Card ($266.39)$0.00
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Recycling $17.70$266.39
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Recycling ($17.70)$248,69
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage $30.42 $266.39
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage ($30A2)$235.97
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Water $41,37 $266,39
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Water • ($41.37)$225,02
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Street Light $10,39 $266.39
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Street Light ($10.39)$256.00
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Sewer $142.29 $266.39
6/28/2012 0:00 Certification - Sewer ($142.29)$124.10
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties -Sewer $14.23 $266.39
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $1.77 $252.16
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $3.04 $250.39
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Water $4.14 $247.35
6/27/2012 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $1.04 $243.21
5/23/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 06/20/2012 $119.72 $242,17
3/28/2012 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.46 $122.45
3/28/2012 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.84 $120.99
3/28/2012 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.77 $120.15
3/28/20120:00 Penalties - Street Light $0,49 $113.38
3/28/2012 0:00 Penalties - Water $1.57 $112.89
2/22/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 03/21/2012 $111.32 $111.32
1/23/2012 0:00 Payment - Credit Card ($175.03)$0.00
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.39 $175.03
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.58 $174.64
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.84 $168.06
12/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.45 $167.22
12/28/20110:00 Penalties - Water $6.65 $165.77
11/23/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 12/21/2011 $159.12 $159.12
10/14/2011 0:00 Payment - Check ($155.72)$0.00
9/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.40 $155.72
9/28/2011 0:00 Penalties Sewer $6.58 $155.32
9/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.76 $148,74
9/28/2011 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.44 $147.98
9/28/2011 0:00 Penalties Water $4.98 $146.54
8/24/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 09/21/2011 $142.44 $141.56
7/18/2011 0:00 Payment - Check ($120,00)($0.88)
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Water $15.64 $119.12
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Sewer ($65.79)$103.48
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Sewer $65,79 $169.27
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Storm Drainage ($14.48)$103.48
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification -Storm Drainage $14.48 $117.96
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Recycling ($8.43)$103.48
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Recycling $8.43 $111,91
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification Street Light ($3.95)$103.48
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification -Street Light $3.95 $107.43
7/7/2011 0:00 Certification - Water ($15.64)$103.48
6/29/2011 0:00 Penalties- Water $1.56$119.12
6/29/2011 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.40 $117.56
6/29/2011 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.58 $117,16
6/29/2011 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0,84 $110.58
6/29/2011 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.45 $109.74
5/25/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 06/22/2011 $108.29 $108.29
4/19/2011 0:00 Payment - Credit Card ($114.24)$0.00
3/30/2011 0:00 Penalties - Water $1.12 $114.24
3/30/2011 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.40 $113.12
3/30/2011 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $6.58 $112.72
3/30/2011 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0.84 $106.14
3/30/2011 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $1.45 $105.30
2/23/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 03/23/2011 $103.85$103.85
12/27/2010 0:00 Payment - Check ($159.36)$0.00
11/24/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 12/22/2010 $104.30 $159.36
9/29/2010 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $3.70 $55.06
9/29/2010 0:00 Penalties - Water $1.31 $51.36
9/14/2010 0:00 Transfer Balance ($54.54)$50.05
9/14/2010 0:00 Reconcile Balance To Recycling $54.54 $104.59
8/25/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 09/22/2010 $112.86 $50.05
7/14/2010 0:00 Payment - Check ($62.81)($62.81)
7/6/2010 0:00 Payment - Check ($62.81)$0.00
6/30/20100:00 Penalties - Water $5.21 $62.81
6/30/2010 0:00 Penalties - Street Light $0.38 $57.60
6/30/2010 0:00 Penalties - Sewer $0.07 $57.22
6/30/2010 0:00 Penalties - Recycling $0,02 $57.15
6/30/2010 0:00 Penalties - Storm Drainage $0,03 $57.13
5/26/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 06/23/2010$5,10 $57.10
5/25/2010 0:00 Deposit Quote $52.00 $52.00
City Council Agenda Item No. 8b
COUNCIL TEM EiVIORANDUM
DATE: September 23, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
VSFROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community
Standards
SUBJECT: Continued Special Assessment Hearing for Proposed Special Assessments for
Administrative Fines/Citation Costs
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the attached resolution certifying
special assessments for administrative fines/citation costs to the Hennepin County tax rolls.
Background:
At the City Council Meeting on September 9, 2013, the City Council moved to continue the
public hearing until September 23, 2013 for certain properties where appeals were made.
Additional information was requested for certain properties where the proposed special
assessments include unpaid administrative fines/citations.
As part of the property maintenance and enforcement process, property owners are given notice
to correct violations, receive notice to pay the bills, and unpaid fees are processed as a pending
special assessments in accordance with applicable laws. The pending special assessment
amounts are available to the public, including title companies, when a property sale takes place.
The nuisance abatement and administrative penalty program also provide an opportunity and
prescribe a legal process for appealing an administrative citation.
Information specific to each special assessment appeal is provided in this report.
Two options for special assessment rolls are provided.
o Option 1 includes the removal of two fees and is recommended by staff
o 6407 Freemont Ave N fee of $125 is removed due to the administrative citation
being dismissed by a hearing officer prior to the assessment hearing.
o 3919 52"d Ave N fee of $125 was removed due to possible miscommunication
occurrence at the time an administrative citation was issued.
o Option 2 includes no fee adjustments.
Budget Issues:
The fees for these special assessments help recover City costs associated with providing a
service. Nuisance abatement costs and administrative fines occur where voluntary compliance is
not achieved and additional staff time is required to gain compliance.
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
fir all people and preserves the public tru.s.t
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
Strategic Priorities:
•Financial Stability
•Vibrant Neighborhoods
Attachments:
-Resolution
-Options: 1. Recommended Amended Special Assessment Certified Roll
2. Amended Special Assessment Certified Roll
-Summary of Appealed Properties
. „--
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Member introduced the following resolution and moves its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES/CITATION COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has caused Administrative
Fines/Citation costs for certain properties within the City from July 1, 2012 thru June 30, 2013
under the authority of City Ordinance Section 18-204 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 429; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2013, certain Administrative Fines/Citation costs
remained unpaid; and
WHEREAS, an assessment roll for unpaid accounts from July 1, 2012 thin June
30, 2013, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof by reference, has been
prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where Administrative Fines/Citation costs
are to be assessed to each property; and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 18-210 and Minnesota State Statute
authorizes the certification of certain delinquent Administrative Fines/Citations to the County tax
rolls for collection; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for Administrative
Fines/Citations costs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
1.The special assessment roll of Administrative Fines/Citations costs incurred
from July 1, 2012 thru June 30, 2013 is hereby adopted and certified as Levy
No. 18414.
2.The special assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad
valorem taxes in 2014, in one annual installment with interest thereon at six
(6) percent per annum and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from
October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the
assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is
paid on or before October 9, 2013. After October 9, 2013, he or she may pay
the total special assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from
RESOLUTION NO.
October 10, 2013 through the date of payment. Such payment must be made
by the close of business November 27, 2013 or interest will be charged
through December 31 of the succeeding year.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplication of this
assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the
county and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
September 23, 2013
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly 2nded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
-4- -ci5 a)d P UR:I ,---,0 •Th-, EA•
H`-' ,---'
0C..)
kr),-1(::
1-e-)...-■71-
kr),-1
.7t-
kr)■.0
'-"'
kr)Cr)
°O
Lr),—,0.,
^4-4
-5
Tzi `g (1).. b.oov) —^0000 c)c)a) upSz), (1.) ,_. •...-,cr,(r)cc)Cr)Cr)Cr)
V) 0
-.<
d v) bo-,- a)•r.,—, nil-( .4e,4"--`
cd -4-4 -0 s---'
CD,--I CD.--4 0,,--(0,—■CD
4-1
0
v--4
tf) -50•—1 0 ,—,v-')kf)11")le")in ir)N
'0 0 000 '----'
0
ooNNNNCr)Cr),-,
Lr)
00
oo
r
ir)Cr)In N 01 Cr)
CD ''t.CD Cr)OC0)0 C>,---1 0 00000000
NNcc),--itcc)<1-N N ,--4 cc)71-
r 1-1 4-...1 4--I 4-1 r4NNNNNN
...'oo oo co CP)O'■C \
0 ri r4 ri ri 1-4 ri
Pi r--I 4-1 r 1--i rl
0 N N ,--,cn t----C--4-I 00 0 cn NN
Z '0
Z (I)Z P4
v)
o
I
;-.i
Zo (1)'(Zo
a)a)
'8
-c)-c)
•(
0p.,0
a0
/-1
Cr)cc)k.0
08.,.„
,--,00.)
0
-c)§
Z
1/40Noo
-11{,c
0
ga.
ir)d-oo
v)o
•EL-■_(.7
co,--+ON
).-,1.)ACt
rz-,
Cr)'71-C■P.-i kr)kr)kr)0 .1D ■.c)
6Z 7t--‘4--4 r ri 4-1 4-11-1
0 0000 00 00 0000
r rl r-1 r r e--I
-i-J -0a.)V., ...., t-0 ,----,,-, ,-).,_t EAH•-• _., ,-- -,
a)
(..)
in
r-4cp,
in,--1,7t-
in
VD,--■
in
1-1
,1-
in
VD,---4
kn
,..0
■-■
inCT
00
in
,--1cp)
^r--4
-i--,17,1
78 °a) a). ,-( ton0 ());-.4 P''''''a) v) ct '`)•. ,4 •-.-0cn 0cn 0,cn cCr)0cn 0Cr)0(r)0c(r)0
Cf) ,vnl 0
.-I -i-, A 173 ct) a
•;--,,-4 n.t, .f.a„.^0 0 0 0000 0
Uml -i-, .4 ‘---'4 u e--I 1-1 1-4 r--1 1-1 e--(r--I 1--1
0 ,,'-'•-, --• ,in lr)tr)(6)in in in in
-ti 0 c,s C---NNNNNin 00'-'a)00 Cr),--.1 Cr),--■.--1 00 .,--,
P-1
kr)Cr)oo in t---7t*O'N Cr)
CD '7t''71"CD cn in ‹:>(::0 00 A-4 0 00 0000000C>0,
(Thcqt-r),--171-Crl71-N cn N H N Cr)'71-
r-4 1-1 e--1 r--1 ,-I r..-1 r.,-i 1--1
-'00 00 (a■oo
NNNNNNNN
a)oo GN 0\0 r,--1 .---(r-,,-,,-,,-■,.--,r-1,-,-(,--1 ,--■,-■,-(-1 ,,--■,--(0s.NN■0)--(cnOt---t----P-(CDOcnOcnk-iNN
Z
,_
-0ZZ0Zr"4
v)v)r-'a.)(1),..,4 Z Z a)>(L)--0;-■-.(--'■,,-'-'-ci (I)>0>...+-4--,,,_,1-kJ -<ia'0 -c5 -,‹.,‹v)-c)-‹
--'a)
a0
)-41.-1-1
0
.-.
0
,..,
,..0 _
0P.
g
kr)(-NI (..cztP,.I
f:a Cr),--i N <)in Cr,)oo Cr)
0 Cc)CD 0 N "t-)---1 )--4
k0
-7t\CD Cr)"1"00 00 01 0101ra-i kr)in ‹)in Cr)CD■0
O
Z
,--1 ,--1 r--(.---1 e—I 1--1 1-1 T-.4
7f .71-7r .71-71.7r 7t.7r
0 00 00 oo 60 oo oo oo oo
/-1-4 .1--1 ,--I 1.--I 1-1 r--I ,--1 ,..-1
Attachment- Summary of Appealed Properties
Property Number 1
Address: 5633 Logan Ave N Owner: Rosa Caceres and
Francisco Cajin
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because she did not
know what the fee was and she said she cannot afford the cost.
Findings: During an inspection, it was noted that there was a vehicle parked on the grass in
the front yard. After two notices to correct the violations, administrative citations were
issued. After three administrative citations were issued, a follow up inspection was completed
and the violations were corrected.
The property has two owners and only one of the owners resides at the property. However,
City records have both owners listed as non-resident. The notices and administrative citations
were confirmed to have been mailed to both owners at the legal address of 6390 Douglas Dr
N. #202, in Minneapolis, MN.
Recommendation: Legal notification requirements were followed and the administrative
citations were not appealed as prescribed by City ordinances. The special assessment is for
the amount of $875
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Illegal
Parking/Storage of
Vehicles
08/28/2012 An inspection noted a Red Honda Civic
parked on the grass and a first compliance
notice was sent.
09/18/2012 An inspection noted the vehicle remained in
violation and a second compliance notice
was sent.
10/03/2012 An inspection noted the vehicle remained in
violation and an administrative citation was
issued.
$125
10/15/2012 An inspection noted the vehicle remained in
violation and an administrative citation was
issued.
$250
10/30/2012 An inspection noted the vehicle remained in
violation and an administrative citation was
issued.
$500
11/15/2012 The property was inspection and the
violation was corrected.
7I13 age
8 Page
Property Number 2
Address: 5901 Vincent Ave N Owner: Joyce K Teekaye
Appellant: Gboyee Teekaye
Appellant's Statement: The appeal was requested at Council meeting, with the
understanding that the violation occurred and he wanted the fee removed.
Findings: Since 2010 there have been 15 property code violations with six separate code
enforcement cases recorded at this property. Of the 15 violations, three of them were for
commercial vehicle violations. The special assessment was for two administrative citations
issued in two separate cases as a result of the property having repeat violations within 24
months of a previous fine. The administrative citations were properly sent to the owner of
record. However, after further review it was determined that the second administrative
citation issued was for $500.00 rather than $125 as recorded in the fees. However, staff
recommends that the additional $375 is not pursued at this time.
Recommendation: Proper legal notification was provided. The administrative citations were
not appealed as prescribed by City ordinances. The special assessment is for the amount of
$375.
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Commercial
Vehicle
04/11/2012 A complaint was received regarding parking
violation including commercial vehicles.
04/12/2012An inspection of the property was conducted.
Multiple violations were found including the
outside storage of a commercial vehicle. A
compliance notice was sent.
04/23/2012 An inspection noted the commercial vehicle
remained at the property and a second
compliance notice was sent.
05/02/2012 An inspection noted the commercial vehicle
remained at the property and an
administrative citation.
$125
(Previously
assessed)
06/20/2012 A phone call was received from property
owner but no return number was available. A
3rd compliance notice was sent.
07/02/2012 An inspection noted the commercial vehicle
remained at the property and an
administrative citation was issued.
$250
07/24/2012 An inspection noted that all violations were
corrected and the request was closed.
06/12/2013 An inspection of the property noted there was
again a commercial vehicle at the property
and an administrative citation was issued.
$125
06/25/2013 An inspection noted the violation was
corrected and the request was closed.
9 Page
10IPage
i
Property Number 3
Address: 6407 Fremont Ave N Owner: Jane Oilman
Appellant: Glen Oltmen
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because they thought
that the fee had been removed.
Findings: The property owner had received an administrative citation for no garbage service.
The owner appealed the fines at an administrative hearing and the fee was removed.
Recommendation: Fee should be removed due to the citation be dismissed by a hearing
officer. The special assessment is for the amount of $125.
Violation Type DatesAction Fees
No Garbage 09/24/2012 An Inspection noted no trash service.
Service
10/10/2012 An Inspection noted no trash service and
was confirmed that it had been on hold
since April of 2012. An administrative
citation was issued.
$125
11/15/2012 An administrative hearing was held and the
fees were removed.
Property Number 4
111Page
Address: 5826 Humboldt Ave N Owner: Doyinsola Kudirat
Lawal
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because they thought
they had more time to correct the violation.
Findings: During an inspection, it was noted that there was an inoperable vehicle without
current registration tabs. After several notices to correct the violation, administrative citations
were issued. After administrative citations were issued, a follow up inspection was completed
and the violations were corrected.
Recommendation: Proper legal notification was provided. The administrative citations were
not appealed as prescribed by city ordinances. The special assessment is for the amount of
$375
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Unlicensed
Vehicle
02/13/2013 An inspection was conducted and noted a
vehicle with expired tabs and a compliance
notice was sent.
02/25/2013 An inspection was conducted and the
vehicle remained in violation at the property
and a second compliance notice was sent.
03/13/2013 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$125.00
03/25/2013 The property owner came into city hall and
discussed the violation.
04/15/2013 The owner called and stated that she was
having trouble getting the tabs and would
have them on shortly.
04/22/2013 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$250.00
05/08/2013 An inspection was conducted and the
vehicle remained in violation. The
inspector left card with resident and
requested a phone call.
05/09/2013 The owner called and said she would be
putting tabs on today.
06/04/2013 An inspection noted the violation was
corrected and the request was closed.
121Page
13 Page
Property Number 5
Address: 6845 Perry Ave N Owner: Radhika Mendoza
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because they stated
they did not receive a notice.
Findings: During an inspection, it was noted that there was a couch stored outside at the
property. After two notices to correct the violations, an administrative citation was issued.
After the administrative citation was issued, a follow up inspection was completed and the
violation was corrected.
Recommendation: Proper legal notification was provided. The administrative citations were
not appealed as prescribed by City ordinances. The special assessment is for the amount of
$125.
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Accumulation of
Junk/furniture
04/22/2013 A complaint was received regarding a couch
in the front yard that had been out for 2
weeks.
04/24/2013 An inspection noted a couch in the front
yard of the property and a compliance
notice was sent.
05/07/2013 An inspection noted a couch in the front
yard of the property and a second
compliance notice was sent.
05/20/2013 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the property remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$125
05/28/2013 A phone message was received from the
property owner and a return message was
sent.
06/03/2013 An inspection noted the violation was
corrected and the request was closed.
14 Page
15IPage
Property Number 6
Address: 3919 52" Ave N Owner: Kathryn Lee
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because the work was
nearly completed when the administrative citation was issued. Photos from 08/30/2012 and
receipts for new upgraded siding materials were provided.
Findings: The case was initiated in June of 2011 when the property was observed to have
peeling paint. After several notices to correct the violation and multiple extensions, an
administrative citation was issued. After administrative citations were issued, a follow up
inspection was completed and the violations were corrected. The administrative citation was
not appealed as prescribed by city ordinances.
Recommendation: There was possible miscommunication about the length of time for
correction when the administrative citation was issued. Therefore, it is recommended that the
fee be removed. The special assessment is for the amount of $125.
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Housing
Maintenance
06/30/2011 An inspection of the property noted chipped
and peeling paint on the house and a
compliance notice was sent.
07/05/2011 A phone call was received from the
property owner requesting more time to
complete the repairs. An extension was
granted.
09/01/2011 A phone call was received and the owner
stated they need more time so that a new
siding and windows could be installed. An
extension was granted.
06/08/2012 An inspection noted the repairs had not
been completed and a second compliance
notice was sent.
06/15/2012 The owner called and stated that they
needed more time to complete the project.
The owner was informed that if there was
progress an administrative citation would
not be issued.
07/26/2012 Inspection noted that some of the siding was
removed.
08/28/2012 An inspection noted that the siding was not
completed and an administrative citation
was issued.
$125
09/17/2012 Phone call from owner to discuss
administrative citation.
10/04/2012 An inspection noted the violation was
corrected and the request was closed.
161P age
17 pa ge
APPRAISAL OF
A Single Family Home
LOCATED AT:
3919 52nd Aver N
Brooklyn Culler, MN 55129
FOR:
LendF.mart Mortgage, LAX.
5701 Kentucky Ave N, Suite 104 Crystal
MN 55428, MN 55428
BORROVER:
Kathryn Lee
AS OF:
August 30, 2012
18 I Page
FRONT VIEW OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY .
Appraised Date: August 30, 2012
REAR VIEW OF
SUBJEC -I PROPERTY
19 page
Property Number 7
Address: 6918 Grimes Ave N Owner: Christopher Erickson
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because the owner
thought this had been resolved.
Findings: The cases at this property were generated by complaints regarding appliance sales.
There have been multiple notices, administrative citations and hearing. At the first hearing,
the fees were stayed pending no further violations. The violation was again noted and a repeat
administrative citation was issued, therefore imposing the previously stayed fees. The
administrative citation was later appealed and the violation and fees were upheld by the
hearing officer.
Recommendation: The administrative penalty program provided the appropriate legal due
process. The special assessment is for the amount of $855.
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Illegal operation
of a special home
04/02/12 A complaint was received regarding
appliance sales from the home.
occupation 04/03/12 Inspection noted that there were appliances
being stored outside at the property and a
compliance notice was sent.
04/05/12 The inspector received a phone call from
the owner and he stated that he sells
appliances from his home and would like to
apply for a special home occupation permit.
04/06/12 A phone call was made to Mr. Erickson; he
was informed that he would not be able to
obtain a special home occupation permit for
the sale of appliances from his home. This
was due to the fact that the ordinance
prohibits the sale of items produced off site.
04/18/12 An inspection observed a vehicle picking up
an appliance. It was also observed that
there were still multiple ads posted on
craigslist from the owner. A second
compliance notice was sent.
04/26/12 The notice that was sent on 04/18/2012 was
returned by the post office. At this time it
was noted that the ads on craigslist
remained. A new final compliance notice
was generated and mailed.
05/07/12 It was noted that the ads remained posted on
craigslist.
05/07/12 An administrative citation was issued $125
05/11/12 City staff met with Mr. Erickson at city hall.
Mr. Erickson wanted to continue to sell his
20 ll'age
appliances at his property. He was
informed that he may be able to apply for a
special home occupation permit if he only
stored the appliances at his property and the
sales occur off site. Mr. Erickson was also
informed that he had to completely stop the
appliance sales activity until he obtained an
approved permit.
05/14/12 An additional complaint was received. The
complaint stated that there were appliances
being unloaded at the property at 11:30 pm.
05/14/12 It was noted that multiple ads remained on
craigslist, many of which had been posted
on 05/14/2012.
05/14/12 An administrative citation was issued $250
05/14/12 A phone call was made to the Mr. Erickson.
He was informed he had been issued an
administrative citation. Mr. Erickson stated
that he was only storing the appliances at
his property, then having the sale take place
at an alternative location. He was informed
that he could have no business activity at
the property, including storage until he had
an approved permit.
05/16/12 Mr. Erickson met with staff to discuss the
process to obtain a special home occupation
permit. It was discussed that Mr. Erickson
would move all aspects of his business to an
alternative location.
06/05/2012 An administrative hearing was held and the
property owner was found to be in violation
and the $375 was stayed pending no same
or similar violations within one year.
05/29/13 A complaint was received regarding the
property being used for appliance sales.
05/29/13 Inspection noted multiple appliances being
stored inside the garage. After a review of
ads for appliances, it was evident that many
photos of the items that were currently for
sale were taken at 6918 Grimes Ave N. An
administrative citation was issued and
previously stayed fines were imposed.
$500
06/26/2013 An administrative hearing was held and the
hearing officer determined that the violation
occurred and imposed the full $500 fine.
The $20 hearing____z_l_i )si,t,:was applied to
21 page
the amount due.
08/19/2013 Additional complaints have been received;
however, staff has been unable to
substantiate the complaints.
22 IP a ge
Property Number 8
Address: 6943 Palmer Lake Rd W Owner: David and Elizabeth
Wylie
Appellant's Statement: Owner requested appeal at Council meeting because he didn't
know what the fee was for.
Findings: During an inspection, it was noted that there was an inoperable vehicle without
current tabs. After several notices to correct the violation, administrative citations were
issued. After administrative citations were issued, a follow up inspection was completed and
the violations were corrected.
Recommendation: The administrative citations were not appealed as prescribed by City
ordinances. The special assessment is for the amount of $1,875.
Violation Type Dates Action Fees
Unlicensed
Vehicle
08/02/2012 An inspection was conducted and noted a
vehicle with expired tabs and a compliance
notice was sent.
08/14/2012 An inspection was conducted and the
vehicle remained in violation at the property
and a second compliance notice was sent.
08/28/2012 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$125
10/08/2012 The inspector spoke to the owner who
wanted to wait to update his tabs until the
end of the month to avoid paying twice.
Staff explained the general process for
registration renewal.
11/20/2012 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$250
12/05/2012 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation. A notice
was place at the door of the property stating
that if the violation wasn't corrected a $500
fine would be issued.
12/12/2012 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$500
01/03/2013 An inspection was conducted and noted that
the vehicle remained in violation and an
administrative citation was issued.
$1,000
01/28/2013 An inspection noted the violation was
corrected and the request was closed.
23 IPage
24 IP age
City Council Agenda Item No. 10a
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 9, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Continued Consideration of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for
5715 Emerson Ave N
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan, Resolution
and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5715 Emerson Ave N. The
applicant or representative has an opportunity to present evidence regarding the submitted
Mitigation Plan. After consideration of the options, if the Council chooses to modify or
disapprove the Mitigation Plan, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare
proposed findings for disapproval of the Mitigation Plan and notify the license applicant of any
pending license actions to be taken at a subsequent Council Meeting.
Background:
At the Council Meeting on September 9, 2013 the Council requested a continuation of the
consideration of the rental license. In addition, Council requested that staff provide a report
regarding options for the licensing for this rental property. The Council will make findings
based on the staff report. The property owner was advised about the continuation of
consideration of the rental license and the concerns about the repeat Type IV licenses received.
The owner has submitted a plan of action restating his desire to comply with the Mitigation Plan.
The City Attorney Charlie LeFevere provided information below in regards to options that are
available as part of the consideration of the rental license.
At its last meeting, the city council held a hearing on the mitigation plan for the single
family residential property at 5715 Emerson Avenue North. The council expressed some
concern about the history of violations on that property, and asked for an explanation
of the Council's options.
The matter currently before the Council is consideration of the adequacy of the proposed
mitigation plan. City code requires proposed mitigation plans to come before the
Council. The Council can approve, disapprove, or approve the proposed plan with
conditions. The purpose of mitigation plans is to reduce police and fire calls and property
code violations. City code says that 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."
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
If the Council disapproves a mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, the Council is
required to state its reasons for doing so in writing. These reasons should relate to the
adequacy of the mitigation plan. If the mitigation plan is not reasonably designed to
reduce police and fire calls and Code violations, the Council can disapprove the
application or approve it with conditions stating the ways in which the mitigation plan
must be amended. If a mitigation plan is not approved by the Council, the applicant will
simply submit a new mitigation plan addressing any matters raised in the Council's
written statement of reasons for denial.
Once a mitigation plan is approved, it is a violation for the licensee to fail to comply with
the plan.
In review of the mitigation plan, past problems are relevant because the plan should be
designed to reduce or eliminate such problems. If the plan does not adequately address
such problems, the Council could disapprove, pointing out the reasons why the plan is not
acceptable.
Past problems on the property are not a reason to deny the license application at this point
in the procedure. In a decision to revoke, suspend or not renew a license, past problems at
the property can be a basis for the Council's decision. However, there is a procedure
specified in Section 12-910 of the City Code that the Council must follow to revoke,
suspend, or not renew a license. Under the Code, the licensee must be provided with the
statement of the grounds for the Council's decision to consider suspension, revocation, or
non-renewal and given a right to a hearing. Based on evidence presented at the hearing,
the Council could decide to revoke, suspend, or not renew the license.
The City Council can impose sanctions on rental properties in a number of ways. These
include criminal prosecution, imposition of administrative penalties and revocation,
suspension or non-renewal. Violation of the city code is a misdemeanor, and can be
prosecuted in court. Such a procedure can often yield results since the criminal process is
a serious matter for most people. However, the process is more expensive and time
consuming, and the courts are often not particularly interested in code violations.
Under City Charter and City Code, the city can impose administrative penalties for
violations. Although this process does not involve the potential for jail time, it can result,
over a period of time, in the imposition of substantial financial penalties on the
licensee. Compared to the criminal process, it is much less expensive and more
expeditious. Additionally, if the penalties imposed are not paid, the city can levy special
assessments against the property for collection.
And finally, as noted above, the Council, after following proper procedures, can suspend,
revoke, or not renew a rental license.
In the case of 5715 Emerson Avenue North, the city has imposed substantial financial
penalties against the licensee over the past two and a half years. It appears that
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
approximately $1,900 in penalties has been assessed against the property for re-
inspection fees, not submitting mitigation plans, and failure to meet plan requirements.
The Council has several options available for the imposition of sanctions or responding to
code violations in the past in this case. One would be to disapprove the mitigation
plan. This would be appropriate if the Council felt the mitigation plan was not sufficient
to address violations that had occurred in the past. A disapproval of the mitigation plan
may result in the presentation to the Council by the applicant of a more satisfactory plan
that addresses the inadequacies identified by the City Council. However, if the problem
is not primarily with the mitigation plan, but rather with past violations, the Council may
wish to consider directing staff to prepare a notice stating grounds for consideration by
the City Council of a decision not to renew the license.
In general, I believe it has been the experience of the staff that the imposition of financial
burdens may be the best and most effective way of getting the attention of a manager who
is not doing a satisfactory job with a rental property. It should be noted that the City
Code does not require the eviction of tenants in the case of revocation, suspension or non-
renewal of a license. Therefore, such actions may not provide an incentive to approve to
a landowner until tenants vacate the property, at which time failure to have a license
would not allow the property to be re-let by the landlord. In the case of a single family
residential property, the tenant could stay in place for a substantial period of time. In
such a case, continuing enforcement efforts, maintaining a Type IV license, and imposing
civil penalties whenever the property is found not to be in compliance with code, may be
the most effective means of improving landlord performance.
Budget Issues:
Options vary regarding staff time and cost recovery.
Strategic Priorities:
0 Vibrant Neighborhoods
Attachment
-Copy of Mitigation Plan submitted as part of the September 9, 2013 Type IV Rental License
Approval
- Copy of Plan of Action submitted by owner to be part of the Mitigation Plan
- Resolution Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5715 Emerson Avenue N
-Copy of September 9, 2013 City Council Memo
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
foral/people and preserves the public trust
Vickie Schleuning
From: LeFevere, Charlie L. <clefevere@Kennedy-Graven.com >
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 8:31 PM
To: Vickie Schleuning
Subject: 5715 Emerson
Vickie,
At its last meeting, the city council held a hearing on the mitigation plan for the single family residential
property at 5715 Emerson Avenue North. The council expressed some concern about the history of violations
on that property, and asked for an explanation of the Council's options.
The matter currently before the Council is consideration of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation plan. City
code requires proposed mitigation plans to come before the Council. The Council can approve, disapprove, or
approve the proposed plan with conditions. The purpose of mitigation plans is to reduce police and fire calls
and property code violations. City code says that 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."
If the Council disapproves a mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, the Council is required to state its
reasons for doing so in writing. These reasons should relate to the adequacy of the mitigation plan. If the
mitigation plan is not reasonably designed to reduce police and fire calls and Code violations, the Council can
disapprove the application or approve it with conditions stating the ways in which the mitigation plan must be
amended. If a mitigation plan is not approved by the Council, the applicant will simply submit a new mitigation
plan addressing any matters raised in the Council's written statement of reasons for denial.
Once a mitigation plan is approved, it is a violation for the licensee to fail to comply with the plan.
In review of the mitigation plan, past problems are relevant because the plan should be designed to reduce or
eliminate such problems. If the plan does not adequately address such problems, the Council could disapprove,
pointing out the reasons why the plan is not acceptable.
Past problems on the property are not a reason to deny the license application at this point in the procedure. In
a decision to revoke, suspend or not renew a license, past problems at the property can be a basis for the
Council's decision. However, there is a procedure specified in Section 12-910 of the City Code that the Council
must follow to revoke, suspend, or not renew a license. Under the Code, the licensee must be provided with
the statement of the grounds for the Council's decision to consider suspension, revocation, or non-renewal and
given a right to a hearing. Based on evidence presented at the hearing, the Council could decide to revoke,
suspend, or not renew the license.
The City Council can impose sanctions on rental properties in a number of ways. These include criminal
prosecution, imposition of administrative penalties and revocation suspension or non renewal. Violation of the
city code is a misdemeanor, and can be prosecuted in court. Such a procedure can often yield results since the
criminal process is a serious matter for most people. However, the process is more expensive and time
consuming, and the courts are often not particularly interested in code violations
1
Under city charter and city code, the city can impose administrative penalties for violations. Although this
process does not involve the potential for jail time, it can result, over a period of time, in the imposition of
substantial financial penalties on the licensee. Compared to the criminal process, it is much less expensive and
more expeditious. Additionally, if the penalties imposed are not paid, the city can levy special assessments
against the property for collection.
And finally, as noted above, the Council, after following proper procedures, can suspend, revoke, or not renew a
rental license.
In the case of 5715 Emerson Avenue North, the city has imposed substantial financial penalties against the licensee over
the past two and a half years. It appears that approximately $1,900 in penalties have been assessed against the property
for re-inspection fees, not submitting mitigation plans, and failure to meet plan requirements.
The Council has several options available for the imposition of sanctions or responding to code violations in the
past in this case. One would be to disapprove the mitigation plan. This would be appropriate if the Council felt
the mitigation plan was not sufficient to address violations that had occurred in the past. A disapproval of the
mitigation plan may result in the presentation to the Council by the applicant of a more satisfactory plan that
addresses the inadequacies identified by the City Council. However, if the problem is not primarily with the
mitigation plan, but rather with past violations, the Council may wish to consider directing staff to prepare
a notice stating grounds for consideration by the City Council of a decision not to renew the license.
In general, I believe it has been the experience of the staff that the imposition of financial burdens may be the
best and most effective way of getting the attention of a manager who is not doing a satisfactory job with a
rental property. It should be noted that the City Code does not require the eviction of tenants in the case of
revocation, suspension or non-renewal of a license. Therefore, such actions may not provide an incentive to
approve to a landowner until tenants vacate the property, at which time failure to have a license would not allow
the property to be re-let by the landlord. In the case of a single family residential property, the tenant could stay
in place for a substantial period of time. In such a case, continuing enforcement efforts, maintaining a Type
IV license, and imposing civil penalties whenever the property is found not to be in compliance with code, may
be the most effective means of improving landlord performance.
Charlie
Charles L. LeFevere
Kennedy and Graven, Chartered
470 U. S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 337-9215
Fax: (612) 337-9310
clefeverekennedy-graven.com
2
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5715
EMERSON AVENUE N
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Sections 12-900 to 12-916 set forth requirements for
licensed rental properties; and
WHEREAS, the property located at 5715 Emerson Avenue N, was issued a Type
IV Rental License on February 25, 3013; and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a property owner who
receives a Type IV Rental License complete Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing
Program; and
WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c establishes the requirement for an
owner of a Type IV rental property to complete Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program,
including attendance at a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings,
complete Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Requirements and City Ordinance
Section 12-913 requires submittal of monthly updates; and
WHEREAS, the property owner of 5715 Emerson Avenue N, Brooklyn Center
failed to attend Owners/Managers Association Meeting and failed to turn in monthly updates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a TYPE IV Rental License is hereby approved for the property
at 5715 Emerson Avenue N, Brooklyn Center, MN.
September 23, 2013
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.
Submit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval:
I Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate (if completed, if not completed, please include
scheduled date in Section C.
9 Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum
3. Submit written report by le of each month (after license approval).
for It 'a. • rThar
I. Use written lease including Crime Free I lousing Lease Addendum.
2. Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants.. Provide documentation to City if
requested.
I 3 Pursue the eviction of tenants who violate the -terms of the lease or any addendums,
hi
I
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
City of Brooklyn Center JUL 0 9 203 Phone: 763•569-3300 TTY 711I
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Fox: 763-569-3360
www.cityafbrooklyncenter.org
-1SISMISMOsisaurgyr,.4_,Prmxt01=11' wit16:-C- =tuatitivitwityv....s-sw.,:e.1;y1
Rental License Mitigation Plan—Type IV Rental License
Handwritten plans will not be accepted. Please type or use finable form on City website.
, ,
. i.. lop; , ',.-.!,,1-, .,.ft# ., '' ii,gigi. ",2: .. . ,....;','-f■ ...y . i :.. u ■1 ''' i -:iii.4......-,,i ,-,,
Vi.P.P,.q.i.)!TA*1..F.CW -61:15irriWg8ii,-!:--v e , ... ...•pkyoillii.fliq ....;i:;.::••-PTI•' -, . - 9 ,,,:zi-::"..•• Y.,- , , FI.1.W.I. :....-'1561:-Age*
-,•::::.;.,v,.:-:-.., r. s•••••-(:.h/tiO .,c.6ddi(1.5,...,.... :. ,. _ . 2 . ... -, • -gig() at..11.0111.AveA01.8,2;.1,,i'pl,.an.pAs;".±AN 5.51.40
in'Yisal's-::_..
— ... • —
-=
-.0Wii-er.111511P:61'2;4'dfiJtil - -Ent .P.Iiiiiik • .- . . 7...- .
CnirriVr Eri iifail:;51 Pli‘"...411!:1i 9.T.P,g§.-ttVi'''a'--!"•--.'";'w'''''.PP12 1..1Ii i co rn:.-:•'..,.:•-•.:',..-,.:,..::•:.:-,:... t
biifEitiall" .;;,;.,-.....,-A- .• ',4
•lRelitalj,ibensi'.[1 NA'I 1 Kntnl _. 4,r,ejit-,:Ltc's-io;
-Peil0).?$-_
x gi ti g_ft•Pitte•-,_ .
•...: .
e g ..g. AF.r"--•.. ,,, .1 .,.,...-'',
-"..k..1k.ifioli1tii'fir.4iii7a4N..-iiii:hee.- exai..daiij4l1.!--.l,.ir.4i,--iif,'-e,,:-
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,
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.
Page 1
Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199
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
111511 4, Attend City approved eight hour Crime Free llousing course.
or Date Course Scheduled:Date Course Completed: tit3 i - '''-t..°
Phase 11
improvements recommended
to be completed by:Ct.
by the
) t)i
1..2
- ..,.01
/ Complete Security Assessment and implement all security
Brooklyn Center Police Department.
Date Scheduled: .."71,e1 '.)1 1 Improvements -
Phase III
(two) . _ „
_ 1 / 4). .8. tt:etk-3- 14/iyityI ,,/ I I will attend a minimum of 50% of the ARM meetings
I will attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: cf"'illx
Do these two meeting dates occur before the *Pending
(*See Section A) If no, you will only be able to qualify
Type inicense expiration date? I* Yes No
for a Type IV Rental License upon renewal.
within the past year.
crime prevention techniques.
( 1 I I will have no repeat code violations documentedpreviously
For properties with four or more units:1 11 I will conduct resident training annually that includesMI will hold regular resident meetings.
VatiOV IA-Al '' IiiittiatiffakaarejlAS..ittikiL - :7-7.1 'ii;',i';;IIkbiln
items.
prior
Based on condition and age, estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital
should be considered accordingly. However, items broken, worn or otherwise in violation
replacement date will require earlier corrections.
f unding
to the estimated
Date Last Replaced Estimated
Replacement Date
06/01/2020Furnace/AC-Within last 8 years
Water Heater-Within last 5 years 06101t2020
Kitchen Appliances-Within last 5 years 0610112015
Laundry Appliances-Within last 5 years 06/01/2010
Exterior
-Paint/Siding, fascia, trim Replaced where needed in 2012 06101/2020
-Windows Within 10 years 06/01/2018
-Roof Garage New/House within 8 years Garage 05/01/17
-Fence NIA-Shed N/A
-Garage Unknown - New Roof 2012 06/01/2030
-Driveway Class 5 Unknown Black Top 20/17
-Sidewalks NIA
Smoke Alarms & Carbon Monoxide Alarms Replaced 01/01/13 Rerkre4erg -whr Gri
Other s)
'" ' Tem
Implementing the following best practices may assist in the
By checking the boxes below, you agree to:
management of your property.
month.
—,--
V 1 I I. Check ill with tenants every 30 days.
I 1 I 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a
Page 2 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums.
Provide lawn/snow service.
5.Provide garbage service,
6.Install security system.
7. Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.:
1 II 8. 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):
D4.
For City se.--Mitigation Plan Approved By:
Buddy' Aunt unity Standards Department / Title Date
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
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 le 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 ill do not comply with an
approved Mitigation Platt, 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.
Eric Da Property Manager
Owner or Agent Name and Title (Please Print)
07/01/13
Owner or Agent Sigiiature Date
Additional Owner or Agent Name and Title (if-applicable) (Please Print)
Additional Owner or Agent Signature (if appliciible) Date
Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-1641
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
PLAN OF ACTION
• 5715 Emerson Ave N
Minneapolis, MN 55430
We plan to follow everything needed from the type IV rental license and
are taking additional steps. We want to go above and beyond the
required City's Mitigation Plan. Please advise of other productive actions
we may take.
1. Documentation that we have done so far with accordance to the
City's Mitigation Plan which is also our standard procedure:
a.Background check is done on prospective tenants as one of
the first step
i. Completed through ASP screening (Reference Item: 14)
b.Current tenant has good credit report and has no criminal
history or evictions. (Reference Item: 14)
c. Minnesota Crime Free Housing Addendum is standard with our
lease. (signed on 5/31/2012) (Reference Item: 13)
2. Steps Taken by the Management team
a. Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate
i.Nam Nguyen, Eric Da, and Sopheak had completed it
(Reference Item: 12)
ii.Tam Ngo will also complete the class for the
certificate
b. We have regularly sent Monthly reports to Xiong Thao, the
supervisor and continue to do so. (Missed July, June was a day
late, September was 2 days late) (Reference
4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11)
i.Document the property for monthly updates by
ii.Driving by
iii. Checking on tenant and property 3 times instead twice a
month
1.Through electronic means and personal house
calls (Will check on the 5th, 15th and 25th of every
Month)
2.We have made repairs when needed
3. With addition to written observations, we will
photograph the property for the monthly updates
iv. Sent reports to supervisor in a timely manner
c. We, either Nam Nguyen, Eric Da, or Sopheak Pho or together
went to the required ARM meetings as noted in Mitigation
Plans (Reference item: 1,2,3)
i. We will continue to go to every ARM meeting required
going forward
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 9, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk AtiPM:14
SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5715 Emerson Ave N
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan, Resolution
and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5715 Emerson Ave N. The
applicant or representative has an opportunity to present evidence regarding the submitted
Mitigation Plan. If the Council chooses to modify or disapprove the Mitigation Plan, it is
recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for disapproval of
the Mitigation Plan and notify the license applicant of any pending license actions to be taken at
a subsequent Council Meeting.
Background:
This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. The property qualifies for a Type IV Rental
License. The property owner failed to meet the condition(s) of the Type IV Rental License,
specifically failed to attend Owners/Managers Association Meetings and failed to turn in
monthly updates.
The property owner received a Type IV Rental License on February 25, 2013 on condition of
adherence to the Mitigation Plan and City Ordinances. The owner has failed to comply with the
Mitigation Plan and applicable ordinances. According to City ordinances, if the requirements of
the license category and the Mitigation Plan are not met, the license renewal category remains a
Type IV.
City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a licensee of a Type IV Rental Property to complete
Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program. City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c requires an
owner (or authorized representative) to attend a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers
Association Meetings.
Staff is recommending approval of the continued Type IV Rental License in lieu of denial,
revocation or suspension because the property is currently in compliance with the ordinance and
has incurred numerous penalties as provided by city ordinances. The property owner and
management are concerned about the rental license status.
The following is a brief history of the license process actions.
Current rental license approval activities:
03-19-2013 The owner, My Truong, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for
5715 Emerson Ave N, a single family dwelling.
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
An initial rental inspection was scheduled. The owner was not on site for the
inspection.
An initial rental inspection was conducted. Five property code violations were
cited, see attached rental criteria.
A follow up inspection was scheduled, however, the tenant did not allow access to
the property.
The property was charged $200 in reinspection fees.
The previous Type IV license expired.
A follow-up inspection was conducted and passed, however, reinspection fees
were unpaid.
City records indicate zero validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the
past twelve months.
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.
The $200 reinspection fees were paid.
An incomplete Mitigation Plan was submitted.
A $125 Administrative Fine was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan.
A $250 Administrative Fine was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan.
A $500 Administrative Fine was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan.
A completed Mitigation Plan was submitted.
The Mitigation Plan was finalized.
A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will
be held September 9, 2013.
A $125 Administrative Fine was issued for failure to meet the plan requirements.
04-10-2013
04-26-2013
05-29-2013
05-29-2013
05-31-2013
06-12-2013
06-12-2013
06-19-2013
06-21-2013
07-08-2013
07-18-2013
07-25-2013
08-06-2013
08-13-2013
08-22-2013
08-29-2013
09-04-2013
Prior Type IV Rental License approval activities:
09-14-2012 The owner, My Troung, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for
5715 Emerson Ave N, a single family dwelling.
10-08-2012 An initial rental inspection was conducted. Eleven property code violations were
cited, see attached rental criteria.
11-08-2012 A second rental license inspection was conducted and passed.
11-08-2012 City records indicate one validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the
past twelve months. (08-29-2012 auto theft)
11-30-2012 The previous Type IV license expired.
12-19-2012 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.
01-03-2013 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.
01-18-2013 A $125 Administrative Fine was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan.
01-3 0-20 13 A Mitigation Plan was submitted.
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for alipeople and preserves the public trust
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
02-05-2013 The Mitigation Plan was finalized.
02-15-2013 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will
be held February 25, 2013.
Continued Type IV Rental License approval activities:
04-18-2012 The owner, My Truong, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for
5715 Emerson Avenue N, a single-family residential property.
05-18-2012 An initial rental inspection was conducted. Zero property code violations were
cited, see attached rental criteria.
05-18-2012 City records indicate one validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the
past twelve months. (Disturbance on 11-12-11.)
05-31-2012 The rental license expired.
07-01-2012 An updated mitigation plan was submitted.
07-09-2012 A Type IV Rental License and Mitigation Plan was approved by City Council.
09-10-2012 A $125 Administrative Fine was issued for failure to meet the plan requirements.
Continued Type IV rental license approval activities:
09-22-2011 My Truong applied for a renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5715 Emerson
Avenue N, a single-family residential property.
10-19-2011 An initial rental inspection was scheduled and no one was on site to meet the
inspector.
10-31-2011 An initial rental inspection was conducted, noting eleven property code violations.
(Please see attached rental criteria.)
11-30-2011 The reinspection was rescheduled.
11-30-2011 The rental license expired.
12-05-2011 The re-inspection was rescheduled.
12-06-2011 The property was posted as an unlicensed rental property.
12-09-2011 An Administrative Citation for $125 was issued for failure to meet the plan
requirements.
01-18-2012 A phone call was made to the owner regarding the unpaid reinspection fee.
01-19-2012 The reinspection fee was paid.
01-19-2012 The reinspection was conducted and passed with one weather deferral item.
01-19-2012 City records indicate one validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the
past twelve months. (Disturbance on 11-12-11.)
02-13-2012 A Type IV (Six Month Provisional License) was approved by City Council.
03-06-2012 A final requirements letter was sent to the owner notifying of the items remaining
to meet plan requirements. (I.e. Phase II CFHP follow up was not completed.)
04-14-2012 Monthly Mitigation Plan update was received.
06-06-2012 A $125 Administrative Fine was issued for failure to meet the plan requirements.
Continued Type IV rental license approval activities:
03-30-10 My Truong applied for initial rental dwelling license for 5715 Emerson Ave N, a
single-family residential property.
04-26-10 An initial rental inspection was conducted and 16 property code violations were
cited. (Please see attached rental criteria)
05-26-10 A second rental inspection noted violations were not corrected.
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
06-25-10 A third rental inspection noted violations were not corrected.
10-14-10 A fourth rental inspection noted one violation remained uncorrected.
11-12-10 Staff left a message for owner regarding correction orders and re-inspection fees.
02-02-11 Another phone call was made and the owner was re-informed of the $200 re-
inspection fee due.
02-10-11 A phone call was received from the property manager to discuss the re-inspection
fee.
02-22-11 Staff spoke to owner about the re-inspection fee.
02-24-11 Staff spoke to owner about the re-inspection fee.
02-25-11 The reinspection fee was paid.
03-01-11 Letter were sent to owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month
Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental
license (submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free
Housing Program, etc.)
04-14-11 A Mitigation Plan finalized.
05-09-11 The rental license and mitigation plan were approved by City Council.
If approved, after six months, a new rental license is 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:
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
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
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
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 perfoimance 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
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for people and preserves the public trust
0-11-2 units
3+ units
Type I — 3 Year
0-0.75
Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria
License Category
(Based on Property
Code Only)
Number of Units Property Code Violations per
Inspected Unit
1-2 units
3+ units
Greater than 1 but not more than 4
Greater than 0 75 but not more than 1.5
Type II— 2 Year
Type III — 1 Year 1-2 units
3+ units
Greater than 4 but not more than 8
Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3
Type IV —6 Months 1-2 units
3+ units
Greater than 8
Greater than 3
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
shall include vidlations 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.
O At least 25% of units, to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for
properties with 16 or more units.
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)
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
1-2
3-4 units
5 or more units
1-2
3-4 units
5 or more units
0-1
0-0.25
0-0.35
Greater than 1 but not more than 3
Greater than 0.25 but not mote than 1
Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50
No Category
Impact
Decrease 1
Category
1-2
3-4 units
5 or more units
Greater than 3
Greater than 1
Greater than 0.50
Decrease 2
Categories
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
Strategic Priorities:
• Vibrant Neighborhoods
Attachment
-Copy of Mitigation Plan Approved as Part of the September 9, 2013 Type IV Rental License
Approval
-Resolution Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5715 Emerson Avenue N
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
War#41,
'e
WokiiO4A .agr-mattil
Page 1 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-1641
Lz±'
Submit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval:
I Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate (if completed, if not completed, please include
scheduled date in Section C.
Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum
3. Submit written report by le of each month (after license approval).
Use written lease including Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum.
2., Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if
requested.
1 13 Pursue the eviction of tenants who violate the -terms of the lease or any addendums.
I
rJ
LJ
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199
JUL t 9 2 013 Phone: 763-569-3300 TIT 711
Fox: 763-569-3360
www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
.:Zi221Matt=1111tgliattregiV46-141L.Yeir/Aratiti',X----.W.6J
Rental License Mitigation Plan--Type IV Rental License
Handwritten plans will not be accepted. Please type or nse finable form on City website.
- -•...-.:-9t,---,-,4!7;,,,: _. , ..Pi6i)eify.:-Aa.d.is§i-'611,6-.E.‘:,--:'-'. Ave
-0.iviii..34Linie.:2....:.,-..........:.::,!:7--..,-; 4:at) ,A,1:110111P*Il'. ....• .... : ..-. • . . -. . :oeiliTAteiir'ici''''''s•,
.. . ..Owner Address
.•.-.". . -4.90 t3iligiei ..Asa tla.4r.,iiririe pilsin?ii55..1 .,iii. ....... ,-•.• ••.. -.......,..
-t-MVendraSs•. ..
S a m e....
'0Witbf•Plfti • .:' • ' •i ,'''• • •••• •:••' ••• '..- "'612;245.,9 e.i.t..Phoii6:'-i......--. '' ,.=.st -..7 .-:.,:..p.i....-:-.:-.!,3,....-7;.. 7'
.•,,
'0Viliel...,iiiai i 'f 5,j ".:.;'.d ......-;6---,f,,,,,,,- ---..ily. ''''' -.- •-, --- -,, :. PR. 1..1.1.P.M.P.§1 1.a gr.T.") .iPo Ag-e'rio,-,i:riiiif.-6....:,-,''...:_'
ew...,-,:• l-R- • .e.w I ' "'•"' I -- ' -E -' - '1.* 'hi) no. -(...:./.01...ilic'eiiic ' '....:.''' --.- . en •a : ,-. Current-. :Acm ate xpiro , . a ,--
...;:..-.,:.,.....,.,.
--.''b...,:.:.;!j:4'-',.,".:•:.':.;.:,•::.1!CA0 11g.,levasC Ex ".-P,9!„:1)/0 .
,•,......
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.
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for till people and preserves the public trust
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
ma 4. Attend City approved eight hour Crime Free Housing course.
or Date Course Scheduled:Date Course Completed: 5 -
..4-7—
Phase H
improvements recommended by the
I 1
to be completed by: 1 / b IA-7-.1, i
ing Complete Security Assessment and implement all security
Brooklyn Center Police Department,
Date Scheduled: _*7 i a gis Improvements
Phase III
(two)
1 a & -e,e6. 1440,11 It will attend a minimum of 50% of the ARM meetings
I will attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: -ouv-11.7—'
Do these two meeting dates occur before the *Pending
(*See Section A)If nu, you will only be able to qualify
7)pe IV License expiration date? El Yes D No
for a Type IV Rental License upon renewal.
within the past year.
crime prevention techniques.
I 1 Ii will have no repeat code violations documentedpreviously
For properties with four or more units:1 li 1 will conduct resident training annually that includesMI will hold regular resident meetings.
lr
-•=mtt(4_,_____JioiOlgrio,-,Opititl - ximils:Mio , • -H ,•••,•,' , .•
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
06101/2020Furnace/AC-Within last 8 years
Water Heater-Within last 5 years 06/01/2020
Kitchen Appliances-Within last 5 years 06;01/2015
Laundry Appliances-Within last 5 years 06101/2018
Exterior
-Paint/Siding, fascia, trim Replaced whore needed in 2012 06/01/2020
-Wind ()WS Within 10 years 06/01/2018
-Roof Garage NewiHoose within 8 years Garage 05101/17
-Fence N/A
-Shed N/A
-Garage Unknown. New Roof 2012 06/01/2030 .
-Driveway Class 5 Unknown Black Top 20/17
-Sidewalks NIA
Smoke Alarms & Carbon Monoxide Alarms Replaced 01/01/13 Rep6010g-W4Wra=t2d 4/
Ot11%.:rp ,3$14110i.E.'-4;,--$0,4i.Oblitiiiii0.14.01100bitiliWailke
Implementing the following best practices may assist in the
By checking the boxes below, you agree to:
Tifiki.- *
management of your property.
month.
- ' ' ''''
VIII Check in with tenants every 30 days.I i 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a
Page 2
Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 1146-11
Mission: Ensuring an attnictive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
(r/L)Avie3
Dwe
Buildi ini unity Standards Department / Title
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
=13. Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendum.
1E] 4. Provide lawn/snow service.
5. Provide garbage service.
[1-1 6 Install security system.
7. Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.:
I 1 t 8. I am and will remain current on payment of utility fees, taxes, assessments, fines, penalties and other
financial claims due to the City.If I 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 le 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.
Eric Da Property Manager
Owner or Agent Name and Title (Please Print)
07/01/13
Date
Additional Owner or Agent Name and Title (if appl(cable.) (Please Print)
Additional Owner or Agent Signature (jf applicable) Date
Page 3
Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
City Council Agenda Item No. 10b
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 17, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer TTh
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing Improvement, Accepting Feasibility Report, Ordering
Improvement and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Water
Treatment Plant Improvements Project No. 2014-05
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution establishing the
improvement, accepting the feasibility report, ordering the improvement and authorizing
preparation of plans and specifications for the Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project No.
2014-05.
Background:
At the August 26, 2013 City Council work session meeting, the Council indicated to proceed
with the recommended action plan pertaining to manganese in the City's drinking water that
includes constructing a water treatment plant (see attached memo dated August 20, 2013). The
Council directed to proceed with immediate planning with a goal of project completion by the
end of 2015.
For the Council's consideration, attached is the Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study
prepared by SEH, Inc., dated July 31, 2013. The recommended water treatment plant includes a
Gravity Filter Treatment Plant with a treatment capacity of 7 million gallons per day (MGD)
with the ability to treat up to 10 MGD for short periods. The water treatment plant is proposed to
be located on City owned property in the northeast quadrant at the intersection at 70 th and
Camden Avenues, which is centrally located within the City's main well field.
A tentative schedule includes a bid letting in spring 2014, a construction start in late spring 2014
with a completion and plant startup of Fall 2015.
Budget Issues:
An estimated project cost of the Gravity Filter Treatment Plant is $18,254,000. Complete
funding details for the plant have not yet been determined. However, it is anticipated that it
would be paid for by user fees through the Water Utility Fund. Additionally, the City is pursuing
funding through the State Drinking Water Revolving Fund, which typically offers low interest
loans, often times portions of which end up to be forgivable loans/grants. A complete funding
package will be presented prior to proceeding with and authorizing advertisement for bids to
construct the project. In the interim, funds to pay for the design work would be obtained from the
Infrastructure Construction Fund.
Strategic Priorities:
• Community Image
'Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for people and preserves the public trust
MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: August 20, 2013
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT: City's Drinking Water Update - Manganese
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the
proposed action plan pertaining to manganese that is present in the City's drinking water.
Background:
On January 28, 2013, the City Council of Brooklyn Center directed staff to develop an action
plan pertaining to manganese in the City's drinking water. As discussed at that time, a new
potential health risk was identified in the City's drinking water by the Minnesota Department of
Health (MDH) pertaining to the naturally occurring concentrations of manganese present in the
ground water (see attached January 25, 2013 memorandum).
On March 7, 2013, the City commissioned a consultant, TKDA, to prepare a feasibility study
report to evaluate and prepare short- and long-term alternatives to consider in addressing the
potential manganese health risk in the City's drinking water. This Water System Feasibility
Study Report dated August 2013 has been concluded and is attached for your reference and
consideration.
Action Plan
As discussed in the report, while the manganese levels in Brooklyn Center's water supply have
been historically high and the aesthetic issues have been well known and understood, the City
chose not to construct a water treatment plant in the past. Currently with the new guidance
provided by the MDH that suggests too much manganese from drinking water may be harmful to
our health, new consideration by the City is warranted to address the high levels of manganese in
our drinking water.
Considerations in the study included multiple approaches as follows: a "do nothing" approach,
selective well operation using only those wells with lower manganese concentrations, drill a new
well in a different aquifer, use treated drinking water supplied from surrounding cities, use the
Mississippi River as a new drinking water source, point-of-use devices for individual household
water filtering, use of bottled water and constructing a ground water treatment plant.
Understanding the benefit and ease of implementation of the selective well operation option, City
staff immediately evaluated and implemented selective well operation to lower the levels of
manganese in City water. Prior to implementation, the average manganese concentration within
the City was approximately 350 parts per billion (ppb). Upon determining the best blend of well
operation, we were able to reduce the concentration to slightly less than 300 ppb initially.
However, during the summer months when water usage is more in demand, we are less able to
rely on the single well (Well No. 6) with the lowest manganese concentrations and must pump
llission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
• for all people and preseriTs the public trust
MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION
more out of other wells to meet the water demand, thus increasing the blended manganese
concentration. The latest manganese concentration measurements taken in July 2013 resulted in
an average level of approximately 320 ppb, which exceeds guidance value levels for infants (100
ppb) and for children/adults (300 ppb)
Upon full evaluation and consideration of available options, staff believes the most feasible and
recommended long-term approach to address the manganese issue in the City's water supply is to
construct a water treatment plant. The following are the pros and considerations in
recommending this option:
•Very effective, reliable process in reducing manganese levels.
•Least impact on water rates (as compared to other effective solutions).
•City would no longer be providing a potential drinking water source that exceeded
recommended guidance values for manganese. While other options could be considered,
there would still be the potential for consumers to drink the water with higher manganese
levels if remained untreated.
•Other collective benefits of treated water from a citywide water treatment plant
o High iron levels would be reduced.
o Easier and more timely to address and treat the potential threat of emergent
contaminants, should they ever become an issue.
o Addresses the historical aesthetic issues of hardness in Brooklyn Center's water.
o MDH classifies Brooklyn Center's well field vulnerability (risk to contaminants)
as being moderate to very high. A water treatment plant creates future options
that can mitigate this vulnerability.
•Brooklyn Center is one of the few metro cities that does not have a water treatment plant
that removes manganese and iron.
•Treated water would then meet the Environmental Protection Agency's Secondary
Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water standard.
•Lowering the manganese levels would dispel any notion to the consumer that Brooklyn
Center's drinking water is unsafe or poses a health risk.
Should the City Council decide to proceed with the development and construction of a water
treatment plant, an updated Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Study has been prepared and
completed by SEH, Inc. dated July 31, 2013. A water treatment plant is estimated to cost
approximately $18 million. If funded through the City's water fund, this would have an
approximate $0.96 per 1,000 gallon increase to the current weighted average rate of $1.38 per
1,000 gallons of water, resulting in an approximate quarterly increase of $17.28 ($69.12 per year
increase) per household assuming consumption of 18,000 gallons per quarter per household.
Public Outreach
The City has prepared and made available informational sheets pertaining to the potential health
risk in the City's drinking water relative to manganese. The City is prepared to increase public
outreach efforts with a proactive and thorough approach once the course is determined. This
approach will include sending educational mailings with the utility billings, educational articles
in the City Watch publication, continued information available on the City's website and other
educational opportunities that become available.
Illission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive cottnnunity that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Recommendation
While the manganese health risk issue has not been determined or defined with absolution by the
EPA or MDH, staff feels there is enough current professional and technical research and
guidance that warrants mitigation. The MDH is furthering this research and will be testing
drinking water supplies throughout the surrounding counties over the summer of 2013. Although
this research may not prove any further health risk, it may provide a better overview of "at risk"
communities, similar to Brooklyn Center.
As indicated, staff believes the best long term solution is to construct a water treatment plant, not
for the sole purpose of manganese level reduction, but also for the other collective benefits as
indicated above. The timing of constructing a water treatment plant project includes other
factors, most notably funding. In anticipation of this potential course of action, it should be noted
that the City of Brooklyn Center applied for a Minnesota Public Facilities Authority low interest
grant/loan on June 6, 2013, to construct a water treatment plant — results of our application
should be available in September 2013.
Policy Issues:
Does the City Council support proceeding with the recommended action plan that includes
constructing a water treatment plant?
If the City determines to proceed with the construction of a water treatment plant, staff
recommends consideration of the following factors and timeline options:
Immediate Timeline (1-2 year) — Under this option, immediate planning would commence to
construct a water treatment plant that would be up and running by 2015. If the City determines
that the potential health risk warrants immediate implementation based on the information we
know now, the City could move forward with potential project completion by the end of 2015,
understanding a funding package would need to be developed and determined.
Future Timeline (2+ years) — Under this option, continued evaluation would occur to plan for a
future water treatment plant that could be constructed in the future. Considerations that should be•
given to this option include the following:
•The City's current well blending initiatives have resulted in a slight lowering of
the average manganese levels on the consumers' end. However, the sustainability
of operating Well No. 6 continuously is not fully known and has not produced
low enough levels to lower the manganese concentrations below the health risk
levels.
•Manganese has been classified as a "potential" health risk by the EPA and MDH
versus an absolute or "known" health risk. There may be future studies that dispel
the current levels of manganese experienced in Brooklyn Center's drinking water
as being a health risk.
•MDH is currently performing further manganese studies in the surrounding
communities and counties. Future information from those studies could warrant
itlission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION
further consideration by the City of Brooklyn Center prior to determining its
course of action.
Currently, the City of Brooklyn Center is in full compliance with all Primary
Drinking Water Regulation standards. The City is not required to address
anything pertaining to manganese in its drinking water.
Council Goals:
Ongoing:
5. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is
properly managed
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sr , inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
for all people and preserves the public trust
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT, ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY
REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION
OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 2014-05
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Health identified a new potential health
risk in the City of Brooklyn Center's drinking water pertaining to the naturally occurring
concentrations of manganese present in the ground water; and
WHEREAS, at the August 26, 2013 City Council Work Session, the City Council
provided direction to proceed with an action plan that includes constructing a water treatment plant
with a target completion date by the end of 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the scope of proposed improvements for
the Gravity Filter Water Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, said improvements for a Gravity Filter Water Treatment Plant are
necessary, cost effective and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report, and are recommended to be
considered by the City Engineer, and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer is prepared to develop plans and specifications for said
public improvement project; and
WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to spend monies from the Infrastructure
Construction Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures
from the proceeds of taxable or tax-exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid
from property taxes, grants and/or utility fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to begin the process of preliminary and final
design of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. Improvement Project No. 2014-05 Water Treatment Plant Improvements is
hereby established and ordered.
RESOLUTION NO.
2.The Engineer's Feasibility Report for the Water Treatment Plant
Improvements is received and accepted, and the City Engineer is authorized
to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements.
3.Estimated project costs are as follows:
COSTS AMOUNT
Water Treatment Plant $14,544,000
Contingency $ 1,454,000
Subtotal $15,998,000
Engineering/Administrative/Legal $ 2,256,000
Estimated Total Costs $18,254,000
4. Project revenues and funding are currently being evaluated and determined.
Expected funding sources include City water utility fees, State of Minnesota
Drinking Water Revolving Funds, and other potential funding sources as
available. Funding is expected to be determined prior to proceeding with the
public advertisement for bids to construct the improvements.
September 23, 2013
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.
FeasbilKy Study
Water Treatment Plant
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
SEH No. BROCT 124406
July 31, 2013
Building a Better World
for All of Us".
Engineers I Architects l Planners I Scientists
Water Treatment Plant
Feasibility Study
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
SEH No. BROCT 124406
July 31, 2013
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
Date: July 31, 2013 Lic. No.: 19869
Reviewed by:July 31, 2013
Date
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
3535 Vadnais Center Drive
Saint Paul, MN 55110-5196
Executive Summary
The City of Brooklyn Center has nine water supply wells with concentrations of manganese ranging from 0.23
milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.59 mg/L. The US EPA Secondary Standard for manganese is 0.05 mg/L. Water
with concentrations of manganese above the Secondary Standard causes aesthetic problems including black
staining of plumbing fixtures and laundry and taste complaints. In addition, the Minnesota Department of Health
has issued a health guidance value for manganese of 0.1 mg/L for bottle fed infants and 0.3 mg/L for children and
adults.
The most cost effective method for removing manganese from drinking water is chemical oxidation followed by
sand filtration. This requires construction of a water treatment plant. Based upon an analysis of Brooklyn Center's
water demand, the capacity of the water treatment plant should be 7 million gallons per day (MGD) with the ability
to treat up to 10 MGD for short periods of time. The water treatment plant site is the City owned property in the
northeast intersection of 70 th Avenene N and Camden Avenue.
For this study two manganese removal treatment plant alternatives were evaluated including gravity filtration and
pressure filtration. With gravity filtration, the water flows by gravity through concrete filter cells into a holding
tank (clearwell). The water is then pumped into the distribution system. With pressure filtration, the water is
pumped from the wells through steel pressure filters and directly into the distribution system.
Report level project and life cycle cost opinions for the two alternatives are included below. The project costs
include the capital cost, plus contingency, administration, and engineering. Life cycle costs represent the total cost
of owning the treatment plants for 50 years and include capital cost, equipment replacement, labor, gas, chemicals,
insurance, electricity, and annual equipment repair.
Project Cost 50 Year Life Cycle Cost
Gravity Filter Treatment Plant $18,254,000 $32,474,000
Pressure Filter Treatment Plant $17,864,000 $33,942,000
As the table indicates, the gravity filter treatment plant has a slightly higher project cost, but a lower overall life
cycle cost. The pressure filter treatment plant has a higher life cycle cost due to the expense of painting and
maintaining the steel filters; whereas concrete gravity filters require very little maintenance.
In addition to having lower life cycle costs, gravity filters have other advantages over pressure filters including: (1)
more treatment options including aeration and detention without requiring another pumping step, (2) water from
the gravity filters does not go immediately into the distribution system, if problems occur with treatment processes
operators have time to react, (3) gravity filters are open to view and access, and (4) gravity filtration systems have a
greater amount of operational flexibility.
A gravity filter treatment plant is the recommended alternative due to the advantages it offers at a comparable cost.
If deemed necessary and warranted by the City, the proposed project schedule could be as follows:
Item Completion Date
Preparation of Plans January 2014
Ad for Bid February 2014
Bid Opening March 2014
Construction Start April 2014
Plant Startup August 2015
Construction Complete November 2015
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Table of Contents
Certification Page
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
1.0 Water Quality Assessment
Page
1
1.1 Raw Water Supply 1
1.2 Current Water Treatment 1
1.3 Drinking Water Quality 2
1.4 Primary Drinking Water Standards 3
1.5 Secondary Drinking Water Standards 3
1.5.1 Manganese 3
1.5.2 , Iron 3
1.5.3 Hardness 3
1.6 Manganese Health Effects 3
1.7 Emerging Contaminants 4
2.0 Water Demand 4
2.1 General 4
2.2 Population Projection 5
2.3 Historical Water Use 5
2.3.1 Variations in Water Use 5
2.3.1.1 Average Day Demand 5
2.3.1.2 Maximum Day Demand 8
2.4 Project Water Use 8
2.5 Adequacy of Existing Water Supply 9
3.0 Water Treatment 9
3.1 Current and Future Treatment Needs 9
3.2 Treatment Capacity 10
3.3 Manganese Removal Options 10
3.4 Hardness Removal 10
3.4.1 Lime Softening 10
3.4.2 Ion Exchange Softening 11
3.5 Blending •1
3.6 Pilot Study Results 11
3.7 Filter Sizing 12
3.8 Treatment Alternative 1 - Gravity Filter Layout 12
3.8.1 General 12
3.8.2 Building Layout/General Sequence 13
3.8.3 Main Level 13
3.8.3.1 Chemical Rooms 13
3.8.3.2 High Service Pump Room 13
3.8.3.3 Electrical Room 13
3.8.3.4 Mechanical Room 13
3.8.3.5 Training Room 13
SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
Feasibility Study
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
BROCT 124406
Page i
Table of Contents (Continued)
3.8.3.6 Generator Room 13
3.8.4 Upper Level 14
3.8.5 Clearwell 14
3.9 Treatment Alternative 2 — Pressure Filter Layout 14
3.9.1 General 14
3.9.2 Building Layout/General Sequence 15
3.9.3 Main Level 15
3.9.3.1 Chemical Rooms 15
3.9.3.2 Electrical Room 15
3.9.3.3 Mechanical Room 15
3.9.3.4 Training Room 15
3.9.3.5 Generator Room 15
3.10 Backwash Alternatives 16
3.10.1 Backwash Alternative 1 — Backwash Tanks 16
3.10.2 Backwash Alternative 2 — Lamella Plate Settlers 16
3.10.3 Backwash Alternative Comparison 17
4.0 Architecture 17
4.1 Architectural Design 17
4.2 Building Code Analysis 17
5.0 Electrical Requirements 19
5.1 Main Electric Service / Standby Power 19
5.2 Power to Nearby Wells 7, 9 and 10 20
5.3 Effects of VVTP Filters on Well Pumps 20
5.4 Building and Site Lighting 21
6.0 Utility Space Needs Evaluation 21
7.0 Preliminary Site Planning 21
8.0 Capital Cost Opinions 21
9.0 Life Cycle Cost Opinions 22
10.0 Alternative Evaluation & Recommendation 23
11.0 Schedule 24
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page ii
Table of Contents (Continued)
List of Tables
Table 1 Well Data 1
Table 2 Brooklyn Center Consumer Confidence Report - 2012 2
Table 3 Brooklyn Center Water Use Pumping Records 1988 -2012 7
Table 4 Average Daily Water Use Summary 8
Table 5 Maximum Daily Water Use Summary 8
Table 6 Capital Cost Opinion Summary Gravity Filter Water Treatment Plant 22
Table 7 Capital Cost Opinion Summary Pressure Filter Water Treatment Plant 22
Table 8 50 Year Life Cycle Cost Summary Gravity Filter Water Treatment Plant 22
Table 9 50 Year Life Cycle Cost Summary Pressure Filter Water Treatment Plant 23
List of Figures
Figure 1 — Brooklyn Center Historical & Estimated Future Population 6
Figure 2 — Brooklyn Center Maximum Day & Average Day Water Use 9
List of Appendices
Appendix A Site Plans
Appendix B Pilot Study
Appendix C Treatment Alternative No.1 Gravity Filtration Layouts
Appendix D Treatment Alternative No.2 Pressure Filtration Layouts
Appendix E Architectural Renderings
Appendix F Cost Options
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page iii
July 2013
Feasibility Study
Water Treatment Plant
Prepared for City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
1.0 Water Quality Assessment
1.1 Raw Water Supply
The City of Brooklyn Center operates nine (9) high capacity wells finished in the Prairie du
Chein-Jordan sandstone aquifer. Table 1 provides a summary of each well including capacity
and concentrations of manganese, iron, and hardness in each well. Figure 1 in Appendix A
shows the locations of Wells 3 through 10. Well 2 is located approximately 2 miles
southwest of the primary well field.
Table •
Well Data
Well
No.
Year
Constructed Capacity (gpm)
Manganese
(mg/L)Iron (mg/L)
Hardness
(mg/L)
2 1959 1200 0.48 <0.05 320
1961 800 0.38 0.13 380
4 1961 1200 0.59 0.17 460
5 1966 1500 0.36 <0.05 340
6 1965 1500 0.23 <0.05 410
7 1970 1500 0.43 0.10 360
8 1977 1000 0.47 <0.05 330
9 1984 1500 0.43 <0.05 310
10 1990 1500 0.41 <0.05 390
Source:
The total combined capacity of the wells is 11,700 gallons per minute (gpm) or 16.9 million
gallons per day (MGD). The firm capacity (i.e. capacity with largest well out of service) is
10,200 gpm or 14.7 MGD.
1.2 Current Water Treatment
Zinc orthophosphate is added to the water at the wellhouses to control iron, manganese, and
corrosion. Zinc orthophosphate sequesters the iron and manganese present in the well water
which keeps the iron and manganese in solution. Customer complaint histories show that this
method is not a suitable treatment for the water. The addition of the zinc orthophosphate also
helps reduce the lead and copper that leaches into the water from plumbing piping and
fixtures. This helps keep the lead and copper levels within acceptable limits
BROCT 124406
Page 1
Chlorine and ammonia are also added to the well water. The added chlorine and ammonia
fauii a combined chlorine residual called chloramines. This combined residual is a less
powerful oxidizing and disinfecting agent compared to free chlorine, but lasts much longer
than free chlorine. The long lasting nature of this residual allows the city to maintain an
adequate disinfection residual at all points in the distribution system.
In accordance with Minnesota State Statute, fluoride is also added to the treatment process to
promote strong teeth.
1.3 Drinking Water Quality
The City of Brooklyn Center tests their drinking water on a regular basis. The results of the
tests are published in a Consumer Confidence Report annually. Table 2 displays the results
of the most recent Consumer Confidence Report. As can be seen from Table 2, the supplied
drinking water is in compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations.
Table 2
Brooklyn Center Consumer Confidence Report - 2012
Detected
Substance (units)MCLG MCL
Range of
Detections
Average
Result Source
Barium (ppm)
(10/06/2011)2 N/A 0.6 Discharge of drilling wastes; Discharge from
metal refineries; Erosion of natural deposits.
Combined Radium
(pCi/l)0 5.4 ND-2.5 2.5 Erosion of natural deposits.
Flouride (ppm)4 4 1-1.1 1.09
State of Minnesota requires all municipal water
systems to add flouridd to the drinking water to
promore strong teeth; Erosion of natural
deposits; Discharge from fertilizer and
aluminum factories.
TTHM (Total
Trihalomethanes)
(ppb)
0 80 N/A 0.9 By-product of drinking water disinfection.
Chlorine (ppm)MRDLG: 4 MRDL:4 1.4-1.5 1.43 Water additive used to control microbes.
Lead (ppb)
(07/14/2010)0 AL: 15 1.8 0 out of 30
sites tested
Corrosion of household plumbing systems;
Erosion of natural deposits.
Copper (ppm)
(07/14/2010)1.3 AL: 1.3 0.85 0 out of 30
sites tested
Corrosion of household plumbing systems;
Erosion of natural deposits.
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there
is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level. The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water.
MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology.
MRDL: Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level.
MRDLG: Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal.
AL: Action Level. The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other
requirement which a water system must follow.
90th Percentile Level: The value that is obtained after disregarding 10% of the samples taken that had the highest levels.
pCi/1: PicoCuries per liter. A measure of radioactivity.
ppb: Parts per billion.
Ppm: .Parts per million.
ND: No detection.
N/A: Not applicable. Does not apply.
RAA: Risk Assessment Advice.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 2
1.4 Primary Drinking Water Standards
Primary Standards are legally enforceable standards that public water suppliers are required
to meet. Primary standards protect public health by regulating the levels of certain
contaminants in public water supplies. Primary drinking water standards include regulations
for levels of: microorganisms, disinfectants, disinfectant byproducts, inorganic chemicals,
organic chemicals and radionuclides.
The City of Brooklyn Center's drinking water does not exceed any primary drinking water
standards.
1.5 Secondary Drinking Water Standards
Secondary Standards are non-enforceable guidelines which regulate contaminants such as
iron, manganese, and hardness that cause aesthetic or cosmetic effects, such as taste, odor and
color, and can cause problems with piping.
1.5.1 Manganese
The secondary standard for manganese is 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L; equivalent to parts
per million [ppm]). Water with concentrations of manganese above the secondary standard
can cause black or brown staining on fixtures and taste complaints. In addition, there are
potential health concerns with manganese as discussed in Section 1.6.
As shown in Table 1, the drinking water from Brooklyn Center's wells consistently exceeds the
Secondary Standard for manganese with concentrations ranging from 0.23 mg/L to 0.59 mg/L.
1.5.2 Iron
The secondary standard for iron is 0.3 mg/L. Water with concentrations of iron above the
secondary standard causes reddish-brown staining on fixtures. As shown on Table 1, the
drinking water from the Brooklyn Center wells does not exceed the secondary standard for iron.
1.5.3 Hardness
Although not included as a secondary standard, water above 120 mg/L hardness is
considered hard water. Hard water causes scaling on fixtures and can eventually cause
piping to become plugged.
As shown on Table 1, the drinking water from Brooklyn Center's well is considered hard
with a hardness ranging from 310 mg/L to 460 mg/L.
1.6 Manganese Health Effects
Manganese consumption is essential for healthy living at low doses (recommended dose
0.003 mg/d — 2.3 mg/d based on age and gender). The recommended dose is typically
achieved with proper nutrition through the natural presence in food and drinking water.
Manganese in large doses however can potentially lead to long term health effects. Currently
there are no regulations pertaining to manganese concentrations in drinking water; however
the EPA and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) publish guidance values for selected
constituents that may have health concerns for certain segments of the population. The
guidance values are supplemental to the Primary and Secondary Standards. In 2012, the
MDH updated their manganese guidance for drinking water and subdivided the population
into two groups: (1) infants (<1 year of age) and (2) children (>1 year of age) and adults.
This two tiered system established guidances deemed appropriate for each population
segment of 100 ppb and 300 ppb respectively (MDH 2012 Health Based Guidance for
Groundwater).
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 3
The human health effects of excessive manganese consumption are hard to determine due to the
long time frame these impacts take to become evident, lack of quality scientific studies, and the
limited relevance animal studies have to human reactions with manganese. What is known
about manganese toxicity is enough to formulate recommendations for safe concentrations in
drinking water. The extent of health effects is partly dependent on the route of exposure (oral
ingestions being considered the least toxic), age at exposure and the nutritional status of the
individual. Regardless of route, age, and nutrition, the nervous system is the most effected
system in the body (EPA Drinking Water Health Advisoiy for Manganese, 2004). Studies have
shown that an excessive manganese concentration in drinking water has the potential to affect
the learning abilities and behavior of infants and children. Decreased test scores in school and
on neurobehavioral tests are seen among children exposed to high levels of manganese in
drinking water. Infants and children are more susceptible to health impacts from manganese
for several reasons, (1) they are developing rapidly making impacts more profound than they
would be in later life, (2) infants and young children absorb more manganese and excrete less
of what is absorbed, and (3) they have a high food & water intake to body weight ratio.
Additionally, infants are frequently exposed concentrations of manganese when they are fed
with formula (which contains sufficient manganese for nutrition and development) mixed with
water containing manganese. Significant uncertainty exists concerning the long-term effects of
overexposure to manganese, but in general the neurological impacts are slow to appear and
thought to be irreversible (MDH Manganese in Drinking Water, 2012).
The City of Brooklyn Center's drinking water average concentration of manganese varies
dependent on well usage, but ranges from 280 to 460 ppb, approximately four times the
recommended concentration for infants and over the recommended concentration for adults.
While this is in compliance with state and federal drinking water regulations, the potential for
adverse health effects are present, especially for infants and young children.
1.7 Emerging Contaminants
The US EPA maintains a Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) for contaminants that may need
to be regulated. The current CCL includes 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12
microbiological contaminants. The list includes chemicals used in commerce, pesticides,
biological toxins, disinfection byproducts, and waterborne pathogens. The contaminants on
the list are not currently regulated by existing Primary drinking water standards. It should
also be noted that the US EPA reviews existing regulated contaminants and typically lowers
those standards (i.e. arsenic).
Although it isn't possible to predict what contaminants will be regulated in the future, having
flexibility in a treatment system is important to provide options.
2.0 Water Demand
2.1 General
To guarantee appropriate water supply for the City of Brooklyn Center, it is necessary to
study the recent past, present, and future water requirements. Appropriate supply, treatment,
storage, and distribution infrastructure need to be in place to ensure the residential,
commercial, and industrial water needs are met.
The demand exerted on the water supply system is related to numerous factors including, but
not limited to: climate, land use, population, population distribution, commercial and
industrial activity, water quality, water rates, water pressure, sewer availability, economic
level of the community, soil conditions, and the condition of the system. Supply, storage, and
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 4
distribution are based on present demands, and are evaluated by the City to predict future
requirements of the system.
The area of study for this report is within the City limits. This study utilizes pumping data
from 1988-2012 along with historical and estimated populations to evaluate water demand
through the year 2030.
2.2 Population Projection
Brooklyn Center experienced its most explosive growth during the 1950s when the
population rose from 4,300 to 24,356. The population peaked in 1975 with approximately
37,000 residents. Since this time, the population has decreased to the mid-to-upper 20,000s.
The population of Brooklyn Center has for all intents and purposes stabilized in the past
decade, and is projected to stay approximately the same looking into the future. The 2010
U.S. Census reported a population of 30,104, a slight increase of approximately 3% in
population from the previous 2000 Census. The Metropolitan Council predicts a population
of 29,500 for the year 2030.
The historical population trend and estimated future is shown in Figure 1.
2.3 Historical Water Use
The historical water use in Brooklyn Center is shown in Table 3. Table 3 displays 25 years of
data years of pumping data from 1988-2012. A drought during 1988 created substantial
water demand which can be viewed in the table. Since this time the water use has declined
substantially to their current levels, in large part to the City's water conservation measures.
Implementing lawn irrigation restrictions and the trend towards water saving fixtures has
helped reduce peak water demands. In addition, the population in Brooklyn Center was'
decreasing in the late 1980's.
2.3.1 Variations in Water Use
Throughout the day, the water demand placed on the city varies substantially. The volume
and flow rates of the demands play large roles in operational and design decisions.
2.3.1.1 Average Day Demand
The average day demand is equal to the total annual pumpage divided by the number of days
in that year. In addition to estimating the maximum day and maximum hour demands, the
average day demand is useful in estimating future revenues and costs associated with water
treatment operations. The average daily demands, and the pumping records used to calculate
them for the last 25 years are shown in Table 3.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 5
Figure 1 — Brooklyn Center Historical & Estimated Future Population
40000
38000
36000
34000
32000
30000
28000
26000
24000
22000
20000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 6
x >..
2as as0
")'`r.
.
cn
c■
cs)
,--4
cn oo co co
ceS
a,
s:
k.0
ci,--,
.4
■,6
s-
C7■
-4
N:
cn
0.6
c,
C-:
cn cc)
kr;
cs-
v:;
6 .?,,
cn
,,..,
C'011/40
oo(0)oo
v-i
,,,..--'
ooci -v-)
dtI - - - -c,1
-4dt.o
kr)CNs
kn001/40
r--,,-■.4
hpIn
Na1----
"71-C')C')kr)
a\
,..,
cn
2
a'a.4
C')00.--,0,
`71-o0,
,_,,-„at'
0ooa,
Nc-ssoo
00ooc,1
00ooo
1/4.0,-,v:p> ‘,.,-00 a,In _,--...,N 0 If)'0 CD ,t VI 1/40 a „..,-_,-,(-1/41 ,_-.,as 0 , ,,-,1-N 0.,m 0.,< CI
4
C')
,zt :
"0
cn C"-;
1/40
cc;
.--I
r-i
,t.
cc;
•71..
cci
00
cc;
'7I•
C")
Ln
C”)
cc)
cc;
t---
cc;
-
c'-;
-
Cr;
t----
cc)
''' .
C`";
cn
cc;
.0
cc;
--•
C')
If)
cc;
in
cc;
-4
cc;
0,
(--
'a
cc;
>,_N CN c1/41 __rn kr)d'co kr),-.VD .....--.1 CI kd.cn 71:t--m-t--00 ,zt 'kJ"VD
0 or-N
4c)1/4.0
tricnCn
,;-2,cl,-
ee;CQcn
Ncn!-,
a;kelN
IfiVDN
0;ooC")
N:It)N
t--:CNN
('-',1cl--,
v6If)cn
06CIcn
ad-
,-4
a;
It)cn
,-,
NN
0:;dtc-‘1
t--:,--,cc)
(7-,cn,-,
v-;C'N
E--:00N
ir;
VD--,
(-
C-0
,z;
QDr.-,
•-a4-,01 00 Cn kr)N cn N Cn ,-,C')00 N r---,co N co k.0 If)C')cc!oo If')N
e4
0 p L02 0C. •01 Lt 2. . .
Cl000 g r (17_,2 C'.9_,td,1._.-C,;,1,0%)Cr ,: L)et ,..:_ .)v.p,R,et . :,,-)et 2 cr .1.1 .i..7. t -,rG,, .1
'a
T:,
T....
x :F,,-+,-,CI 00.v-,.C ,1.0.01.,-.00.*-4.c:I,.kn.c).c).(---.N.d-.CN.,-,.C-.C■.N.VD.1"--.CD0.11 m C5; 0 Cr■c)0tin ,,■4)-,v-)CDr,1/4.0a CDin 1/4.1D71-
ONN C-oo C')VD Nd-
CN
1/4.0 cnCD ,-,cn If)Cl Nkr)cnco CDN NCD InN di-VD If')
1/4 0 Chk-.C-d'03 - a c(-1 N a a a ,--■a a a ,-+a a a Na Nn-■aNNa a a a a
03
Cn
(I)C1),-,
N
1-40,
1/4-0
40,
',fp
■.c:iop
,C.)
oov'00
oo
CZ
r-:.00
',fp
vSoo
7i-
c:,cs,
It)
■c;oo
V.)
cc;co
0
,-1oo
0
s:oo
Cloo00
,--,
Noo
0
vioo
71-
Oco
0
a;N
0
-;oo
,--,
c)00
c-,
r-i00
N
a;N
ca.
a;N
ft-)
6r--
(-NI
ociV)
c,
6t---1...
0
oo cc)cc),..0 c)t---,co cn .cp oo cn N ■.0 kr)cn -,0
0
re
>
2
1/40
).4:7;co
,t.
0.6co
VD
tr;oo
CT4,oo
ClO00
N
c,-;oo
•,--,as t---.oo
"c c,co a00
"-4co
•C c)ON ,-,00
"400 ooo
"coN
•t--C-
•o.C-
•NC-'7tC-
"NC-,..0C-
in"NV)
cn
0N
7i""00VDCD 7/;"C c--_vn VD dY cn di-NN N kr).dt N k r).kr).CD VD ,-..d-cn CD CN CN N C>'71'.ooa U 01 m =1
E m a) = 0
ra 0-
1,1
VUD
'71-CD,-.
'71-cn CD •1---CN cnCc\
"C)CN
'CNas kr)Ch
'7i-CD.--4
•cnON
'cnCN
c'nCDa
d-,.--4
kkzi-C1
"NN
(-1CD,.._,
•VDCN
•CDCIN
'C-00 VDa0
"C.-00 C)00
"kr)00
cnC>.
•,.Ch
,00 NIA ,c;r...:en,;,6„s 4 (A a.,el v:).en N N 00 N in In ot!4 cl o ko 0,a■as 0 c1.-. 0 .2 0cc:1.<x;
.7t.C")N C>k-.CD N,.N 71-kr)v.,CD -,It)If')--1
cc;C1/4I a;-,If)CD e::3It)
00--I tr;CD NCD c-,-.c)a aC')v;C'CI ad•
M .-
1- 2
w .-....1-.m0,-.
od
c,
c,i
c1/41
-4
CD
cc;
N
4
cn
1/46
CD
4
cn
4
-,
c=
1/4.0
ifi
cn
01
,-,
Cli
ke)
0;
cl
vi
o
s:
s-
vi
in
6\r,
oo
!--4
oo
06
s
csi
co
cc;
v)
a;
ci
v,
o
cr;
a\
a;C r,(S1
s...0
<00!--4 0')a ¼C',4-4 cn,-,4 4-44 -4,--,4,-4.1 N
r-I
N
1-4
N
r-I
N
e--I
rn
1-4
\0
1--i
If')
r--t
,-,
1--1
(-4N a
,.0
a
,j..
a
•,i..N.,--■Na N
a aa r.-1
M
00
■0
,--4
p
01
(.1
C)
0 \
VD
,-.-■
VD
In
N
,-,
C.-
in
dy
cn
co
cn
....-4
ci
ch
t--:
,-.
e:::,
cp
eel
c:2!
a
-.4
Le;
N
(-,i
di-
re;
ch
O
,-.
N
t---,.
tri
0.,
4
r-..
tri
‘,0
a;
t---
r-:*I-,Ca)-)ooN If)N .4a 4a C')a ,--4a •t•a cc)a sa r-,a 1/40,--i "4,--1 Illa 0N cc)a v-)a If)a 00a csqN c)N sa v:,a ‘.0
7-4
,--4
/--I
4
e--4
a)a 00 CD 00..■-■,.-0 CT CD 0000 1/40 .71.:01 t----..r---.00 00 00 (9 (-1 00 CD 01 CT0
c _,C....--•0.■c)t---:r-(<1N tr)
cSt----4C'c:;If)'-.0,.4 If)cn N:oo It)4-.4 (1ia 01c41 NN )-.a r"-:N c:::;a a;cp c)kr)aN knN 00,z1-a;c)cc;c:,4cq>,+cn .-I e--4 T-4 r-I e--■1-1 v--I 1--1 1--1 v.-I /--t t--I 1-1 ■--1 r-,1-1 /- i v--I 1-1 v--I ,--1 1--1 7-1 1--4
-NG
>.,0
al
6o
C)
N:cn
"7I-.c)N
Nt.....:
00
4kr!
CNkc;
C3
c;
cn
a;
V)
".0
ch.en
cn.N
vn.4
(-4.in
cn
0;
'71-
N
Ch.cn
V)
N CD„..
N
1---:
CN
cc;
kr)
4
dt
4
CN.\--4 oo•co
co•c‘,1
0
0L.2 aa ch
1--1
cl,a
a
0
1-1
0
1--I
,-+
1-1
CV
a
CD
a
C')
a
0
,-4
CDa 0
V--1
0
7--(
o.,0 ,-4 0 `71-a N ClCaN....,I.,1--(1-.1-1
.....-
a_<
Cn
C)
01 0 \
s:
Cr)
c-
kn•.4a,
s•a0,
o•a)oo
0,•40,
VD•a.,a,
CT•ce,0,
C
0.6 cn•Ifa,
tri
,....,
N•00a,
‘.0•c)0,
in•r--0,
v)•i..oa,
N•VDcr,
-4•VDa,
cn•Nca,
cc!•N0,
a,•,-,0,
4•
0,CN
cn•oo
cn•co
1..‘4 CN Lr)CT cr)Ch,VD N.cc)1/4 0 ,---4 cn ,--k 0 1/40 ,-..,,...,4 CD.4 cn N CN N kr)
Q=.•cTo NZa,,-+0.,kr;oo C-S.oo Noo c,-;oo N0.,, \('a,4oo cSoo ee;oo a;oo c:roo e-e;oo e-e;oo a;s-■.6oo aco 6oo c‘ia,(-,ioo a;N c;N 0;1/4.0
.0 !-.co cn kr)4 s ckl Cl ,d ,-,cn oo h ,--,00.h 00 1/4.0.kr)cc!Cl 00 4.N \--,
,,c)4 LA N IA c-4i 4 1----<7;tri a;vz;4 eN ci cn cc)vS -4 cci cn vi,71 a 4 kri-00 00 00 N 00 NN N 00 NN N 00 00 NN N N N N 00 N N.1/46 1/40
c CT 00 Cl 0')N 4 00 crl Cl VD CD c:D 1.t'l 4 CD 1/40 N.kr)kr!a,-4 -,It)!--4 cn
2 cs■cc;Ni kA ■0 cc;44 ar■06 4 a;\cl 6,e-,i 6 a ea;a ci■ai 4 4 ee;a>J r-a■a,00 00 oo oooo oo co oo N oo CT■coco oo co co N ca,00 00 N N
00ooal
0.‘CO01
p
CTCT
.-■
0101
(1
CT01
cn
01CT
d-
ChCT
kr)
CTCA
00 \CT
N01CT
ooCT01
CNCi \C \
000
k--,CZ)0
chlC>0
cn0CD
71'C>0
kr)00
1/4.00CD
N00
000CD
010CD
CD■-■0
‘..--,v-I0
NT..,
CD,-,,,r-,,..4 ,...,....,,-4 ,-,,...,..”,,..",v-,Cl CI cl cs1 N cl clcl N CN1 C•1 c-4 N
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 7
2.3.1.2 Maximum Day Demand
The maximum day demand is critical to the design of a water supply system. The system
should have the capabilities to supply raw water at the maximum day demand rate as well as
the ability to treat this supplied water. It is also important that the system be able to handle
the maximum hour demands through a combination of treatment and storage to supply when
the demand exceeds the treatment rate.
2.4 Project Water Use
As can be seen from Figure 1, the population of Brooklyn Center is predicted to remain
approximately the same. With a water conservation plan in place, it can be expected that the
overall water demand placed on the system will remain stable.
Table 4 displays a summary of the past 10 years of average daily demand.
Table 4
Average Daily Water Use Summary
Average Daily Demand
(million gallons per day)
10-Year Minimum 2.9
10-Year Peak 3.7
10-Year Average 3.4
Based on the trend shown in Figure 2, a reasonable estimate of future average day water
demand is 3.25 MGD. Figure 2 shows that the average day demand has remained very stable
since approximately 1990.
As can be seen from Figure 1, the maximum day demands are generally trending downwards,
especially within the last 10 years. Looking at these last 10 years of data, we can again
summarize the maximum day similarly to the average day. Table 5 below displays the
maximum and average of the maximum daily demand placed on the system and the average
max day/average day ratio from 2003-2012. The max day/average day ratio is a useful
calculation for determining projected either maximum daily demands or average daily
demands placed on the system. Based on recent history, it could be expected that the
maximum daily demand would be approximately 7.5 MGD to 9.5 MGD. This range was
determined using the 10-year max day/average day ratio of 2.2 and the 10-year average day
demand of 3.4 for the lower bound and the 10-year peak with very conservative effects of
water conservation for the upper bound.
Table 5
Maximum Daily Water Use Summary
Maximum Daily Demand
(million gallons per day)
10-Year Peak 9.7
10-Year Average 7.7
10-Year Max Day / Average Day Ratio 2.2
Figure 2 shows the trend in average daily demand and maximum daily demand for the last 25
years, ranging from 1988 to 2012. From this plot it can be seen that the average daily demand
has approximately stabilized in the past ten years, while the maximum daily demand has
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 8
14
12
10
8
--afilf13-61str1377141(11"-Ilirri
4
2
0
‘1-7 Ls
followed a general decreasing trend. The decreasing maximum day and stable average day
demands make these assumptions reasonable, even with the projected slight rise in population.
2.5 Adequacy of Existing Water Supply
The 10-year peak maximum day water demand is 9.7 MGD. The highest ever maximum day
water demand was 12.6 MGD. The firm capacity of the Brooklyn Center wells is 14.0 MGD;
therefore, the existing wells provide adequate capacity.
The peak water demand dropped significantly in the early 1990s. This was due to the
implementation of water conservation requirements, specifically lawn irrigation restrictions.
A drought condition in the late 1980's caused a spike in lawn irrigation and a subsequent
shortage of water. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources started requiring water
conservation plans shortly thereafter.
Figure 2 — Brooklyn Center Maximum Day & Average Day Water Use
1-4—Ivlaxirn um Day
Demand
(Iv1GD)
:—D—Average Day
Demand
(Iv1GD)
1983 11)90 1992 19941996 1998 20002002 2004 2006 2003 2010 2012
Year
3.0 Water Treatment
To remove manganese and potentially hardness from Brooklyn Center's drinking water, a
water treatment facility could be constructed.
3.1 Current and Future Treatment Needs
The City of Brooklyn Center's water is high in manganese and hardness. Otherwise, it meets
all of the primary and aesthetic drinking water standards (except manganese). Manganese
can be removed with sand filtration without detention as discussed in Section 3.3 and Section
3.6. Hardness removal options are discussed in Section 3.4.
Future treatment requirements will depend upon the class of contaminant being treated.
Volatile chemicals can typically be removed using an aerator (i.e. gasoline constituents,
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 9
trichloroethylene [TCE], radon, hydrogen sulfide, etc.). Some organic chemical may be
removed using granular activated carbon (potential taste and odor causing contaminants). It
may also be possible to add chemical feed systems to remove new contaminants using
existing filters (i.e. arsenic, radium). If it is not possible to remove the contaminants by
volatilization, carbon filtration, or sand filtration, membrane filters could be necessary (i.e.
reverse osmosis). It should be noted that sand filtration is typically required ahead of
membrane filters because iron and manganese causes fouling on the membranes.
Ultimately, having a treatment facility that is flexible and can be retrofitted to meet new
potential requirements is very important.
3.2 Treatment Capacity
As discussed in Section 2.4, the 10-year average maximum day water demand is 7.7 MGD,
with a 10-year maximum day water demand of 9.7 MGD. While the overall maximum day
water demand has trended downward in the last 10 years, the average day water demand has
remained essentially the same. The average day to maximum day ratio for Brooklyn Center
is already very low, and it is not expected that the maximum day demand will continue a
downward trend. Instead of having high maximum day water demands (with respect to the
average day), Brooklyn Center experiences numerous days that are very close to the
maximum day demand. In 2012, Brooklyn Center experienced 36 days above 5 MGD with a
maximum day demand of only 6.4 MGD.
The recommended capacity of a water treatment plant for Brooklyn Center is 7 MGD under
normal conditions with the ability to operate up to 10 MGD for shorter periods. This will
allow the City to comfortably treat the numerous days near 7 MGD with the ability to treat all
of the water up to 10 MGD.
3.3 Manganese Removal Options
The most common and most cost effective option for manganese removal is chemical
oxidation followed by sand filtration. In groundwater, the manganese ion is in solution.
When a strong oxidant is added to the water, it converts the manganese to a filterable solid.
The chemical oxidant that is added is typically sodium or potassium permanganate. Chlorine
is a less expensive chemical oxidant, but the reaction with manganese is too slow to be used
in a filtration process. Options for gravity and pressure filtration are presented in Sections 3.7
and 3.8 of this report.
Other options for manganese removal are chemical oxidation followed by membrane
filtration or reverse osmosis. Both of these options are very expensive from a capital cost and
operations and maintenance standpoint and are not being considered further.
3.4 Hardness Removal
Hardness in water is caused by excess calcium and magnesium ions in the water. Hard water
causes scaling on fixtures and can plug pipes. Hardness can be removed from water on a
municipal scale by lime softening or ion exchange softening.
3.4.1 Lime Softening
Lime softening involves adding lime to water to raise the pH to a point where the calcium
carbonate is no longer soluble in the water. By forming calcium carbonate precipitate; the
calcium can be removed by filtration. A lime softening water treatment plant requires
sedimentation, clarification, and filtration and is very expensive. The capital cost of a lime
softening water treatment facility could be as much as $30 million. The operation and
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 10
maintenance (O&M) of a lime softening water treatment facility would also be significantly
more than a manganese removal water treatment facility. Higher O&M for a lime softening
plant is due to a larger facility and more chemical processes. It should be noted that a lime
softening water treatment plant would also remove manganese and would not require a
separate treatment process.
Due to the high capital and O&M costs associated with a lime softening water treatment
plant, it is not recommended for the City of Brooklyn Center.
3.4.2 Ion Exchange Softening
Ion exchange softening involves exchanging calcium and magnesium ions for sodium ions
with an ion exchange resin. This is exactly the same process that is used in a home water
softener. To regenerate an ion exchange softener, the resin is flushed with a concentrated
solution of brine. This process uses a large quantity of salt. A municipal ion exchange water
softening system treating 3.2 MGD (Brooklyn Center's average day demand) would use as
much as 5 tons of salt every day.
The capital cost of adding an ion exchange water softening treatment process to a new water
treatment facility would be approximately $5 million. This cost would be in addition to a
manganese removal water treatment plant.
The operation cost for salt and wasted water for an ion exchange softening process is
approximately $400 per million gallons of water treated. This is independent of whether it is
done by the City or by a resident. On average, residents of Brooklyn Center use
approximately 39,000 gallons of water per person annually. Therefore, if a resident elects to
soften their water, it would cost them approximately $50 extra per year for a family of three
(not including the capital cost of the softener). The annual cost in salt and wasted water for
the City to soften the water would be approximately $500,000.
Due to the high O&M costs associated with an ion exchange softening process and that
residents can choose to do it themselves if desired, it is not recommended for the City of
Brooklyn Center.
3.5 Blending
Blending can be used as a method of not treating all of the water on high demand days. If the
City wants to maintain manganese concentrations below the Secondary Standard of 0.05 mg/L,
only approximately 10% of the water could be bypassed around the filters. Because this
doesn't significantly affect the capacity of the water treatment plant, it is not being considered.
It should be noted that a plant bypass may still be constructed for operational flexibility.
3.6 Pilot Study Results
A pilot study was performed by John Thom of SEH at Brooklyn Center Well No. 4 in May
2013. The Pilot Study Report is included in Appendix B. The objectives of the pilot study
were to evaluate the chemical feed selection/rate for manganese removal, evaluate the
effectiveness of detention, evaluate filer run times, and determine the optimal filter media.
The pilot study found that the combination of chlorine feed followed by permanganate
provided the best oxidation of iron and manganese without detention. The solids produced
were able to be filtered at a rate of 3 gallons per minute per square foot for a period of 27
hours. The filter media that produced the best results was greensand/anthracite media.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 11
3.7 Filter Sizing
The required filter area is determined by dividing the nominal filtration capacity by a flux rate
(filtration rate). Ten States Standards requires sand filtration rates from 2 to 4 gpm/ft2 .
Because the required filtration capacity is 7 MGD under normal operating conditions, the
facility will be designed for 7 MGD at 2 gpm/ ft 2 . Therefore, if 10 MGD is necessaiy, the
filtration rate will still be in the acceptable range (i.e. approximately 3 gpm/ ft 2 ). With a
capacity of 7 MGD and a filtration rate of 2 gpm/ ft 2 , it is necessary to have 2,430 ft 2 of filter
media. To have reasonable backwash rates and operational flexibility, this will be broken
into several filters.
3.8 Treatment Alternative 1 - Gravity Filter Layout
3.8.1 General
In a manganese gravity filtration system, water to be filtered is pumped, under low pressure, to
the treatment facility where it flows by gravity through the various treatment processes.
Following the oxidation process, the water flows through the filter cells from top to bottom. As
the water passes through the filter media, the insoluble particles of manganese are removed.
As more and more water is filtered, the restriction to flow, created by the accumulation of
manganese solids on the media, steadily increases. In a gravity facility, this restriction to flow,
called head, is measured in feet of water depth in the filter cells. As the solids accumulate, the
depth of water in the filter cells increases. Due to the physical nature of a gravity filter, when the
depth of water in a cell reaches its maximum designed head (high water level) backwashing is
required. Failure to backwash at the proper time could result in the filter overflowing or poor
effluent water quality being produced. Gravity filter are typically constructed of concrete or steel.
Steel filters are generally found in smaller water systems. Because of the large size of the filters
required for Brooklyn Center, steel filters are not being considered.
The advantages to gravity filtration systems are:
1.Gravity filters provide for more treatment options including aeration and detention
without requiring another pumping step. If regulations change or the water becomes
contaminated, additional treatment steps can be added to gravity filters.
2.Water from the gravity filters does not go immediately into the distribution system. If
problems with the filters occur or if potassium permanganate is overfed (causing pink
water), operators have time to react and correct the problem.
3.Gravity filters are open to view and access. This is advantageous in that it enhances the
observation, operation and maintenance of the filter functions and components.
4.Gravity filtration systems have a greater amount of flexibility with less disruption during
normal maintenance procedures.
The disadvantages to gravity filtration systems are:
1.The facilities tend to have more capital cost than pressure type facilities. Life cycle costs
between the two facilities are approximately the same, with pressure filters being slightly
higher.
2.Typically requires the facility to be constructed on two floor levels.
3. Provides for less available headloss than pressure facilities which can result in shorter
filter run times. Shorter filter run times result in more backwashing which takes a filter
out of service.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 12
3.8.2 Building Layout/General Sequence
Gravity filter building layouts are included in Appendix C. The chemical rooms are located
on the west side of the building, with exterior doors accessible for deliveries. The electrical,
mechanical, high service pump room, and generator rooms are located in close proximity to
each other to allow for short conduit runs to motor controls.
The gravity filter layout occurs on two levels to allow for filter height to provide head for the
filtering process. The raw water enters the building through the first floor pipe room where
chlorine and potassium permanganate are added. The water goes through the splitter box
where it is divided among the six filters. The water travels through the filters by gravity to
the clearwell. The water travels from the clearwell to the high serVice pump chamber where
it is pumped into the distribution system. Fluoride, chlorine and possibly ortho-phosphate
will be added to the finished water.
3.8.3 Main Level
3.8.3.1 Chemical Rooms
Chemical rooms are clustered on the west side of the building with exterior doors to allow
easy access for chemical deliveries. It is expected that chemical rooms will be required for
chlorine gas, potassium permanganate, fluoride, polyphosphate, and possibly polymer to aid
in backwash settling.
3.8.3.2 High Service Pump Room
The high service pump room contains the pumps that pump treated water from the clearwell
into the distribution system. Because most of the electrical load is located in the high service
pump room, it is in close proximity to the electrical room and generator room.
3.8.3.3 Electrical Room
The electrical room contains the motor control equipment and electrical panels. The location
of this room in close proximity to the high service pump room, mechanical room, and
generator room provide for short conduit and wire runs.
3.8.3.4 Mechanical Room
This room contains the make-up air, dehumidification, HVAC equipment, and filter
backwash blower. The location of this room on an outside wall provides space for air
louvers.
3.8.3.5 Training Room
A training room will be provided that is capable of seating up to 16 people with a smart
board/monitor. A kitchen area with a sink, refrigerator, and microwave will be provided.
The training room is located on an exterior wall to allow for natural light and is near the main
entrance.
3.8.3.6 Generator Room
This room will house the standby generator capable of running the water treatment plant and
selected nearby wells in the event of a power outage or possibly for peak shaving (peak
shaving requires additional emissions compliance). The service entrance and automatic
transfer switch are located in this room. Two exterior walls are provided for intake and
exhaust louvers.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 13
3.8.4 Upper Level
The upper level is depicted on Sheet 2A. The upper level consists of filters, splitter box
room, and the atrium. Windows will be provided in the filter room and the atrium to allow
for natural lighting. Walkways will be provided around the filters to allow the plant operator
to inspect the operating conditions of the filters. Control panels (fixed or mobile) will be
provided to allow the operators to manually initiate backwashes from the upper level.
3.8.5 Clea rwell
A clearwell is located adjacent to the gravity filter treatment facility. The clearwell provides
1 million to 2 million gallons of storage. This storage is necessary to (1) maintain a volume
of water for backwashing filter cells, (2) to provide the flexibility to treat water at a rate
different than the raw water pumping rate, and (3) to provide additional storage for the
distribution system.
To provide operational flexibility and to supplement system storage, a 1 million gallon
clearwell is the minimum size recommended.
It should be noted that Ten States Standards recommends that water systems have at least
their average day demand in elevated storage. Brooklyn Center currently has 3 million
gallons of elevated storage (not all of which is usable) and an average day demand of
approximately 3.25 MGD. A clearwell would help meet the Ten States Standards
recommendation.
3.9 Treatment Alternative 2 — Pressure Filter Layout
3.9.1 General
In a manganese pressure filtration system, water to be filtered is pumped directly to, and
through, the facility's components under pressure. Oxidation occurs inside the pipelines and
filter vessels upstream of the filter media. Following the oxidation process, the water flows
through the filter vessels from top to bottom. As the water passes through the filter media,
the insoluble particles of iron and manganese are removed from the flow.
As more and more water is filtered, the restriction to flow, created by the accumulation of iron
and manganese solids on the media, steadily increases. In a pressure facility, this restriction to
flow, called head, is measured in pounds per square inch (psi). As the solids accumulate, the
headloss, or difference in pressures between the top and bottom sides of the filter media
increases. Due to the design and construction of pressure filters, headloss can be driven as high
as 15 psi, although 5 to 6 psi is the preferred upper limit to ensure water quality.
The advantages to pressure filtration systems are:
1.The facilities tend to have less capital cost than gravity facilities. Life cycle costs
between the two facilities are approximately the same with pressure filters being slightly
higher.
2.Plants are typically constructed on one floor level.
3. Provide for greater available headloss than gravity facilities which can result in longer
filter run times than a comparably sized gravity facility. Longer filter run times require
less backwashing which keeps a filter in service longer.
The disadvantages to pressure filtration systems are:
1. Pressure filter systems have no ability to add additional treatment processes (aeration,
detention) if regulations or water quality changes.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 14
2.Immediately after leaving the pressure filters, the treated water is in the distribution
system. If a problem occurs, operators have no opportunity to correct the situation (i.e.
dirty or pink water) before it is delivered to residents.
3.Closed from view and difficult to access internally. This prevents observation of the
systems operation. Condition of the filter media and flow distribution during a backwash
cycle cannot be readily monitored.
4.Pressure filters are constructed out of steel and require periodic blasting and painting.
5.Inspection of the pressure filters requires entry into .a confined space which is a safety
hazard.
6. Pressure filtration systems are less flexible than gravity systems when disruption to
normal operation occurs during routine maintenance (i.e. no clearwell).
3.9.2 Building Layout/General Sequence
Pressure filter building layouts are included in Appendix D. The chemical rooms are located
on the west side of the building, with exterior doors accessible for deliveries. The electrical,
mechanical, and generator rooms are located in close proximity to each other to allow for
short conduit runs and motor controls.
The pressure filter layout occurs on one level. The raw water enters the building in pressure
pipe and chlorine and potassium permanganate are added. The water goes directly through
the filters under pressure where the manganese is removed. Fluoride, chlorine and possibly
ortho-phosphate will be added to the fmished water.
3.9.3 Main Level
3.9.3.1 Chemical Rooms
Chemical rooms are clustered on the west side of the building with exterior doors to allow
easy access for chemical deliveries. It is expected that chemical rooms will be required for
chlorine gas, potassium permanganate, fluoride, polyphosphate, and possibly polymer to aid
in backwash settling.
3.9.3.2 Electrical Room
The electrical room contains the motor control equipment and electrical panels. The location
of this room in close proximity to the mechanical room and generator room provide for short
conduit and wire runs.
3.9.3.3 Mechanical Room
This room contains the make-up air, dehumidification, HVAC equipment, and filter
backwash blower. The location of this room on an outside wall provides space for air
louvers.
3.9.3.4 Training Room
A training room will be provided that is capable of seating up to 16 people with a smart
board/monitor. A kitchen area with a sink, refrigerator, and microwave will be provided. The
training room is located on an exterior wall to allow for natural light & is near the main entrance.
3.9.3.5 Generator Room
This room will house the standby generator capable of running the water treatment plant and
selected nearby wells in the event of a power outage or possibly for peak shaving (peak
shaving requires additional emissions compliance). The service entrance and automatic
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 15
transfer switch are located in this room. Two exterior walls are provided for intake and
exhaust louvers.
3.10 Backwash Alternatives
Sand filters (gravity and pressure) require periodic backwashing to remove solids from the
filters. Backwashing one of the filters (either gravity or pressure). will consume between
40,000 and 70,000 gallons of water. After a backwash, the solids are allowed to settle and the
clear water is recycled back to the filters. This can be clone with backwash tanks or lamella
plate settlers as discussed below.
3.10.1 Backwash Alternative 1 — Backwash Tanks
Backwash tanks simply involve discharging the backwash water to a tank where the water is
allowed to settle for a period of time (typically 8 hours). Clear water is decanted from the
backwash tank and recycled to the beginning of the treatment process. A backwash polymer
may be utilized to increase settling efficiency.
To allow for more than one filter to be backwashed in one day, multiple backwash tanks are
required. To provide for efficient operation, three backwash tanks are recommended.
3.10.2 Backwash Alternative 2 — Lamella Plate Settlers
Lamella settling is a process that receives continuous flow from the backwash tank, and
provides high rate thickening of the sludge, and reclaims decanted clear water to the beginning
of the treatment train. High rate inclined plate settlers typically thicken backwash sludge to
approximately 0.5 to 1.5% solids
prior to discharging to either a sludge Feed boo
storage tank for further thickening, or Fix-toll on lank
directly to the sanitary sewer.
oticora Ilittoos
Backwash waste water is pumped
from the backwash tank directly into
the gravity settler, alleviating settling
time. A coagulant is added
immediately, as the water flows
through a flash mixer and into a
flocculation tank. The coagulated
sludge then flows into a series of
inclined plates, the surfaces which
collect the sludge and direct it to a
sludge hopper. The clear effluent
flows out the overflow and is
recycled to the raw water. The
inclined orientation of the plates
allows for more surface area for the
4.:<7
Lamella Plate Gravity Settler
C) Parkson
solids to settle upon, while limiting the total space taken up by the equipment.
As with treatment process equipment in general, redundancy is recommended so that in the
event that one lamella settler is down, settling operations can continue seamlessly.
Therefore, one single lamella settler is not recommended.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 16
3.10.3 Backwash Alternative Comparison
The advantages of backwash tanks over lamella plate settlers are that they are easier to
operate and are less expensive. The advantages of lamella plate settlers are that they do not
require settling time and they may waste less water.
Lamella plate settlers waste between 60 and 900 gallons per million gallons of water treated,
depending upon whether a sludge holding tank is utilized. Backwash tanks waste
approximately 750 gallons of water per million gallons of water treated. The potential
savings in sewer costs by utilizing a lamella plate setter are between $1,000 and $3,000
annually. The increased capital cost of a lamella plate settler over backwash tanks is
approximately $1,000,000. The potential water savings will not cover the capital cost of the
lamella plate settlers.
Because they are less expensive and require less attention from operators, backwash tanks are
recommended for Brooklyn Center.
4.0 Architecture
4.1 Architectural Design
The City of Brooklyn Centers' goal for the water treatment facility is to provide a building
which incorporates cost effective sustainable design features, with ease of maintenance and
provides a civic presence to the public, specifically on the west façade, which faces a city park.
It is anticipated that the west side of the building will include the public spaces which include
public lobby and gathering space for small group tours (schools, engineering etc.) office,
restrooms and necessary support. These areas do not require the volume of space of the filter
room and also have different environmental and maintenance requirements. With the desire to
have a civic presence this area could be constructed with a lighter weight steel structure, steel
stud walls and a brick masonry veneer.
The water treatment functions of the building will be constructed of poured in-place concrete
foundations with insulated load bearing precast wall panels, precast concrete double 'T's for the
roof structure of the filter room which allows for a greater clear spans and more daylighting. The
exterior of this part of the building will reflect the utilitarian nature of the water treatment plant.
Sustainable architectural features will include natural daylighting throughout including the
filter room, low maintenance poured-in-place and plant precast concrete structure and wall
panels, building insulation which surpasses the current energy code. Rain gardens and low
maintenance landscaping will be important features included in the site design.
The plans, elevations and sections included in Appendices C and D further demonstrate
the design concept. An architectural rendering of the Gravity Filtration Alternative is
included in Appendix E.
4.2 Building Code Analysis
The water treatment plant will be constructed according to the 2006 International Building
Code and the 2007 Minnesota State Building Code. A preliminary code review is included in
the following sections. The code review determines various construction requirements
including fire sprinkling, egress distances, fire ratings, and plumbing fixtures.
Project: Water Treatment Plant
Client: Brooklyn Center
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 17
Address: Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Date: July, 2013
Building Data:
Occupancies:
Construction Type:
Fire Suppression System:
Stories:
Height:
Total Floor Area:
Main Level:
Upper Level:
B, Fl, H3, H4 and 51
II-B
H3 and H4 Occupancies Only
One
35'-0"
23,000 sf
23,000 sf
0 sf (Equipment and equipment access platforms only)
Building Code:
A. Occupancy (IBC Chapter 3)
1. Occupancy Classifications
a.Fl Factory Industrial - Moderate Hazard
b.H3 High Hazard - Combustibles and Physical
c.H4 High Hazard — Health
d.S1 Moderate Hazard
e. B Business
2. Occupancy Separations
a. Fl to H3/H4: 2 Hour (IBC Table 508.3.3)
B. Allowable Area (IBC Chapter 5)
1. Allowable Area - Separated Users:
a. Allowable area per floor B: TBD sf (IBC 506)
•Construction Type: II-B
•Tabular Area: 37,500 sf
•Perimeter Increase: Not Required
•Sprinkler Increase: Osf
•Actual Area B: 4,060 sf
•Allowable Area Ratio: RATIO TBD
b. Allowable area per floor Fl :TBD sf (IBC 506)
•Construction Type: II-B
•Tabular Area: 15,500 sf
•Perimeter Increase: Not Required
•Sprinkler Increase: Osf
•Actual Area Fl: 7,523 sf
•Allowable Area Ratio: RATIO TBD
c. Allowable area per floor H3/H4: 15,050 sf (IBC 506)
•Construction Type: II-B
•Tabular Area: 14,000 sf
•Perimeter Increase: Not Required
•Sprinkler Increase: Osf
•Actual Area H3/H4: 1,280 sf
•Allowable Area Ratio: RATIO 0.06
•Total of Allowable Area Ratios: RATIO TBD
d. Allowable area per floor Sl:TBD sf (IBC 506)
•Construction Type: II-B
•Tabular Area: 17,500 sf
•Perimeter Increase: Not Required
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 18
▪Sprinkler Increase: Osf
▪Actual Area Si: 7,982 sf
▪Allowable Area Ratio: RATIO TBD
C.Allowable Height: 2 stories or 55'-0"
D.Fire Resistive Requirements
1.Construction Type II-B requirements (IBC Chapter 6)
Structural Frame 0 hour
Exterior Bearing Walls 0 hour
Interior Bearing Walls 0 hour
Exterior Non-Bearing Walls 0 hour
Interior Partitions 0 hour
Floor Construction 0 hour
Roof Construction 0 hour
2.Exterior Opening Protection: 0 hour (IBC Table 602)
E. Egress Requirements (IBC Chapter 10)
1.Occupant Load: 106 (See Occupancy Count Table)
2.Required Exit Width: 21.2" MM. (Occupant Load x 0.2")
3. Minimum Number of Exits:
a. B Two
b Fl One
c.H3/H4 Two
d.Si Two
4. Maximum Travel Distance:
a.B: 300 ft (IBC Table 1016.1 sprinkled occupancy)
b.Fl: 250 ft (IBC Table 1016. sprinkled occupancy.
c.H3 150 ft (IBC Table 1016.1 sprinkled occupancy)
d.H4 175 ft (IBC Table 1016.1 sprinkled occupancy)
e. Si 250 ft (IBC Table 1016. sprinkled occupancy
F. Plumbing Fixture Requirements (IBC Chapter 29)
1.Occupancy: Business/Factory/Industrial
2.Restroom Fixture Requirements TBD
5.0 Electrical Requirements
5.1 Main Electric Service / Standby Power
Electric service to the new Water Treatment Plant (WTP) will be provided by Xcel Energy.
Xcel Energy will provide an outdoor pad-mounted transformer near the new building in the
vicinity of the Electrical Room. The service voltage will be 277/480VAC, three-phase. The
new service size may be in the range of 1200-2000 amps, and will be determined during the
project design process depending on final pump sizes and equipment selections. The electric
service size will also be affected by the type of filtration selected; gravity filters will "transfer"
some of the pumping load from remote well pumps to new high service pumps at the WTP.
The WTP will be supported by a standby engine-generator. For water supply reliability, the
generator will be sized to operate the entire plant building and pumping loads during peak
flow conditions. The engine-generator will be an indoor, diesel unit with dual-wall base tank
and weatherproof housing. The housing will include sound abatement features for
compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Noise Rules.
The plant electric service will include an automatic transfer switch. If incoming voltage is
abnormal, or if power is lost, the transfer switch will automatically start the engine-
generator and transfer the plant to standby power. When utility power is restored (after an
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 19
adjustable delay), the plant will automatically be returned to the utility source, the engine
will cool down and then stop.
It is anticipated that the engine-generator will be used for "standby" duty only. Xcel Energy
offers a reduced rate structure for customers that will operate their generator during peak
electric periods, but MPCA/EPA regulations require Air Permitting, additional equipment,
expense and ongoing costs for this operating mode. The potential for operating in a "off-
peak" mode can be evaluated further during the final design if desired.
Dry-type transformers within the building will step power down to 120/208VAC for lighting,
general circuitry and small equipment.
5.2 Power to Nearby Wells 7,9 and 10
Three Wellhouses (No. 7, 9 and 10) are located near the proposed WTP location. These wells
do not have permanent standby engine-generators. To improve water supply reliability, it is
proposed that these Wellhouses will be re-powered from the new WTP. In so doing, Wells 7,
9 and 10 can be supported by the WTP standby engine-generator, providing raw water supply
to the WTP during an area-wide power outage.
The project will include underground 480VAC, three-phase feeders from the WTP to each of
the three Wellhouses. Existing Xcel Energy services will be removed from these Wellhouses,
providing reduced overall monthly costs to the City.
5.3 Effects of WTP Filters on Well Pumps
The City wells currently pump directly to system pressure. If pressure filters are installed at
the new WTP, the discharge pressure conditions at the wells will be similar to cuiTent
conditions and the pumps do not need to be modified. However, if gravity filters are installed
at the new WTP, then discharge pressure conditions at the wells will be substantially lower.
Refer to the process portions of this study for additional process discussion.
If gravity filters are selected, the existing well pumps and motors will be oversized for the
application. Options include:
Modify Existing Pumps and Leave Existing Motors: The pumps could be modified by removing
bowls, trimming impellers, etc., so that the pumps deliver desired flow rate at the new lower head
conditions. For motors that already have variable frequency drives, the VFDs could also be used
at slower speeds to compensate for lower head conditions. In either case, leaving the existing
motors is an option. However, the resulting pump and motor efficiency will be lower than
efficiency values that could be obtained from new equipment selected for the new pumping
conditions.
Modify Existing Pumps and Provide New Smaller Motors: Existing pumps could be modified
as described above. New premium-efficiency motors could be installed, potentially reducing
electric consumption. Custom adaptor plates and shaft connections would probably be
needed, since the new motors would have smaller frame sized.
Replace Pumps and Motors: New lineshaft pumps and premium-efficiency motors could be
installed in place of the existing equipment. This option has the highest first-cost, but will
provide the greatest pumping efficiency.
If a gravity filter treatment plant is constructed, it is recommended that Wells 7, 9, and 10 not
be modified and retain the ability to pump directly into the distribution system as well as
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 20
pumping to the treatment plant. These wells were selected because they will be on standby
power from the treatment plant. This will allow the City to pump directly into the distribution
system if the plant is taken out of service. The remaining wells pumping to the treatment
facility will have smaller motors and new pumps installed.
5.4 Building and Site Lighting
New high-efficiency 'T8' and 'T5' fluorescent lighting is recommended for all new plant
areas. Fixture bodies in plant areas should be non-metallic enclosed units to reduce corrosion
and extend the life of the new lighting fixtures.
Smaller and specialty areas should be illuminated with high-efficiency fluorescent, compact
fluorescent or LED lighting units as applicable.
Building exterior and site lighting should consist of LED units for best energy efficiency.
6.0 Utility Space Needs Evaluation
City staff were solicited for additional space needs and features in the water treatment plant
building in addition to the necessary filters and process rooms. The additional features
required in the building included:
•Garage with a minimum of 4 stalls plus additional work space
•Repair shop area with ability to do hydrant repair
•Control room
•Laboratory room
•Bathrooms (male/female) and a locker room
•Training room capable of seating 14 with kitchen area
7.0 Preliminary Site Planning
As shown in Figure 2 in Appendix A, the proposed water treatment plant site is located east
of Camden Avenue, north of 70th, between Wells 9 and 10. The site is advantageous because
of the close proximity to the City wells.
Figures 1A and 1B in Appendices C and D show proposed layouts for gravity and
pressure filter water treatment plants.
Previous reports have expressed concern regarding potential groundwater at the site;
however, a geotechnical report prepared by American Engineering Testing in 1998 indicated
that water encountered at the site would be considered a perched water condition.
8.0 Capital Cost Opinions
Feasibility level opinions of probable cost (OPC) broken down by construction category were
prepared for the gravity and pressure filtration alternatives. A breakdown of these costs by
division are included in Appendix F. Tables 6 and 7 present the capital costs for the gravity
and pressure filter treatment plants.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 21
Table 6
Capital Cost Opinion Summary
Gravity Filter Water Treatment Plant
Item Cost
Water Treatment Plant:$14,544,000
Construction Contingency:. $1,454,000
Preliminary Construction Cost:$15,998,000
Engineering/Construction Admin $2,256,000
Total Estimated Project Cost:$18,254,000
Table 7
Capital Cost Opinion Summary
Pressure Filter Water Treatment Plant
Item Cost
Water Treatment Plant:$14,234,000
Construction Contingency:$1,425,000
Preliminary Construction Cost:$15,658,000
Engineering/Construction Admin $2,206,000
Total Estimated Project Cost:$17,864,000
9.0 Life Cycle Cost Opinions
Life cycle costs represent the total cost of owning the treatment plants for 50 years and
include capital cost, equipment replacement, labor, gas, chemicals, insurance, electricity, and
annual equipment repair. Detailed life cycle cost tables are included in Appendix F.
The life cycle costs presented in Table 8 and Table 9 assume a 20 year financing period on
the capital costs with 2% interest rates and 2% inflation. It should be noted that the electrical
costs shown are in addition to what Brooklyn Center already incurs to operate the wells.
Table 8
50 Year Life Cycle Cost Summary
Gravity Filter Water Treatment Plant
Item
50 Year Life Cycle
Cost Annual Cost
Capital Project Costs $18,254,000 $1,116,000
Equipment Replacement $2,393,000 $76,000
Labor $2,941,000 $60,000
Gas $980,000 $20,000
Chemicals $3,186,000 $65,000
Insurance $980,000$20,000
Electricity $2,451,000 $50,000
Equipment Repair $1,288,000 $26,275
Total 50 Year Life Cycle Cost $32,474,000.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 22
Table 9
50 Year Life Cycle Cost Summary
Pressure Filter Water Treatment Plant
Item
50 Year Life Cycle
Cost Annual Cost
Capital Project Costs $17,864,000 $1,092,000
Equipment Replacement $5,482,000 $174,000
Labor $2,941,000 $60,000
Gas $980,000 $20,000
Chemicals $3,186,000 $65,000
Insurance $980,000 $20,000
Electricity $735,000 $15,000
Equipment Repair $1,774,000 $36,000
Total 50 Year Life Cycle Cost $33,942,000
The primary reason that the pressure filter treatment plant has a slightly lower capital cost but
a higher life cycle cost is due to the cost of painting and rehabilitating the steel pressure filters
periodically. Concrete gravity filters require much less maintenance.
10.0 Alternative Evaluation & Recommendation
The two options for removing manganese from Brooklyn Center's drinking water that have
been evaluated include gravity filters and pressure filters.
The capital cost of the pressure filter treatment plant is slightly less than the gravity filter
treatment plant ($17.9 million versus $18.3 million). However, the life cycle cost of the
pressure filter treatment plant is more than the gravity filter treatment plant ($33.9 million
versus $32.5 million). The pressure filter treatment plant has a higher life cycle cost due to
the expense of painting and maintaining the steel filters; whereas concrete gravity filters
require very little maintenance.
In addition to having lower life cycle costs, gravity filters have other advantages over
pressure filters including:
•Gravity filters provide for more treatment options including aeration and detention
without requiring another pumping step. If regulations change or the water becomes
contaminated, additional treatment steps can be added to gravity filters.
•Water from the gravity filters does not go immediately into the distribution system.
If problems with the filters occur or if potassium permanganate is overfed (causing
pink water), operators have time to react and correct the problem.
•Gravity filters are open to view and access. This enhances the observation, operation
and maintenance of the filter functions and components.
•Gravity filtration systems have a greater amount of flexibility with less disruption
during normal maintenance procedures.
A gravity filter treatment plant is the recommended alternative due to the advantages it offers
at a comparable cost.
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 23
11.0 Schedule
The proposed project schedule could be as follows:
Item Completion Date
Preparation of Plans January 2014
Ad for Bid February 2014
Bid Opening March 2014
Construction Start April 2014
Construction Complete November 2015
Feasibility Study BROCT 124406
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 24
Appendix A
Site Plans
Appendix B
Pilot Study
Pilot Study Report
Pilot for Well 4,
City of Brooklyn Center, MN
SEH No.
May 2013
EMENSIMINEL
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 1
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal
Certification Page
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives
2.0 Existing Facilities
2.1 Well 4
2.2 Source Water Summary
3.0 Pilot Testing Processes and Equipment
3.1 Pilot Testing Processes
3.2 Pilot Testing Equipment
3.2.1 Chemical Feed System
3.2.2 Filtration
3.2.3 Sampling and Analysis
4.0 Well 4 — Pilot Test
4.1 Raw Water Quality at Source
4.2 Process Equipment and Chemical Feed
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Aeration
5.2 Detention
5.3 Chlorine
5.4 Permanganate
5.5 Filtration
6.0 Recommendations
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 2
Pilot Study Report
Pilot Report for Well 4
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Brooklyn Center has 9 wells located west of State Highway 252 and
east of Dupont Ave, North of 70rd 'Avenue and South of 73 rd Avenue. The wells
are capable of producing approximately 15 million Gallons per day from the
Jordan Aquifer. The water quality is low in iron with an average of 0.401 mg/1,
which is just over the secondary standard established by the EPA of 0.3 mg/l. The
manganese is much higher than the secondary standard of 0.05 mg/I with an
average of 0.608 mg/l. This value is over 10 times the secondary level of 0.05
mg/l.
.2 Objectives
The objectives of the study were to evaluate treatment methods for the reduction
of iron and manganese for Well 4 and select treatment methods for the design of a
Water Treatment Plant for the City of Brooklyn Center.
The study included the following objectives:
•Evaluate chemical selection for reduction of iron and manganese
•Evaluate the detention time needed for the oxidation of the iron and
manganese in the well water
•Establish the filter run length
0 Evaluate different filter medias for filtration
2.0 Existing Facilities
2.1 Well 4
Well 4 is Jordan Well, located at 7020
Dupont Avenue. The well has a pumping
capacity of 1200 GPM.
Water supply for the pilot study at Well 4
was collected from the well's main
effluent header, prior to the addition of
chlorine. Raw water has an average of
0.401 mg/I iron, 0.601 mg/1 manganese
and a pH average of 7.04
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 3
2.4 Source Water Summary
The water from Well 4 varied
somewhat on the iron content with a
high 0.521 mg/I and a low of 0.241
mg/l. The longer the well was
pumped the lower the iron content
became. On startup after a
shutdown over night the level was
up again, but came down quickly.
Well 4 Raw Water Qualit
Iron Manganese pH
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
0.241 0.521 0.3578 0.541 0.642 0.6012 6.96 7.127.04
3.0 Pilot Testing Processes and Equipment
3.1 Pilot Testing Processes
The pilot study was conducted to establish the efficiency and reliability of the
treatment process selected to be best suited for the treatment of the plant influent.
Based on the concentrations of contaminants in the water and on prior experience,
the processes selected for the pilot study are described as follows in section 3.2.
3.2 Pilot Testing Equipment
3.2.1 Chemical Feed System
The chemical feed systems used in the pilot study were Blue and White Peristaltic
metering pumps capable of feeding a maximum of 3.5 gallons per day. The
pumps were setup to feed less than 5 gallons per day for this study. The chemicals
selected for the pilot study were:
•Chlorine as hypochlorite
•Permanganate
The hypochlorite was fed as 6 percent hypochlorite or 2.33 percent as chlorine.
Permanganate was mixed at 3 grams per liter of distilled water, so that 1 milliliter
in a liter represents 3 mg/1 as permanganate. The aerator was a draft aerator
located in the upper right hand corner of the picture.
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 4
3.2.3 Filters
Four filters with a diameter of 8 inches by 72 inches tall were provided. The filter
has a 3/4-inch inlet, 11/2-inch backwash waste outlets under drain system, air release
system, and rate of flow meters, sample taps, and filter media. The filter columns
provide a total area of 0.35 ft 2 of surface area per column. When the filters are
operated at 3-gpm/ft 2 , each column has aftequivalent flow rate of 1.05 gpm
applied. Pressure taps are located on the inlet and outlets of the filter to obtain
filter head loss by comparing the two pressures.
Two filters were charged with the were loaded with 18 inches of silica sand and
12 inches of anthracite media and two were charged with 18 inches of greensand
Plus and 12 inches of anthracite media. The columns were loaded with 0.45 mm
to 0.55 mm silica sand and 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm anthracite media. The green sand
was greensand Plus with a grain size of 0.3 mm to 0.35 mm.
Pilot Unit Filters
3.3.4 Sampling and Analysis
Field testing of the influent water
to the pilot trailer for iron and
manganese were conducted using
a Hach 890 Colorimeter. pH and
temperature were conducted using
Hach HQ 40 pH meter. Chemical
addition was measured using
calibration columns on each
chemical. The volume of each
chemical in milliliters was
measured per unit of time.
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 5
4.0 Well 4 - Pilot Test
4.1 Raw Water Quality at Source
Raw water from Well 4 averaged 0.357 mg/1 iron, 0.601 mg/1 manganese with an
average pH of 7.04 units. The raw water quality from Well 4 is presented in the
following table:
Well 4 Raw Water Qualit
Iron Manganese pH
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
0.241 0.521 0.3578 0.541 0.642 0.6012 6.96 7.12 7.04
4.2 Process Equipment and Chemical Feed
The process equipment and chemical feed evaluated during the piloting of
Collector Well 4 was utilized in the flowing flow order:
OAeration
O Detention
•Chlorine feed
•Permanganate Feed
•Filtration
The pilot run was conducted using aeration and chlorine with approximately 30
minute contact time followed by the addition of permanganate before filtration on
silica sand/anthracite media. The second treatment train was conducted using
chlorine and permanganate for oxidation before filtration with the same design
filters as the first treatment train.
The chemicals used for the oxidation were chlorine fed before detention on the
one treatment train and permanganate fed after detention, on the second treatment
train the chlorine was fed first followed by permanganate approximately 10
seconds later.
The following tables present the chemical dosages used during the pilot run
conducted at Well 4:
Chemical Dosage without Detention
Chlorine Permanganate
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
1.792 2.3552 2.07 0.677 0.7373 0.705
Chemical Dosage with Detention
Chlorine Permanganate
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
1.896 2.9479 2.44 0.521 0.8633 0.695
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 6
The chemical dosages were approximately the same with a slightly less use of
chlorine on the columns without detention. This was likely because of the
different reaction time required to maintain a chlorine residual in the detention
tank.
Filter columns 1 and 3 were constructed with 18 inches of 0.45 mm to 0.55 mm
silica sand with 12 inches of 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm of anthracite media. Columns 2
and 4 were constructed with 18 inches of 0.30 mm to 0.35 mm of greensand and
12 inches of 0.8 mm to 1.0 mm of anthracite media.
All filters met the EPA secondary levels for a filter run period of 27 hours with a
lowest level of 0.017 mg/1 for iron and an average 0.008 mg/1 for manganese on
column 2, which is a greensand column operated at 3 Gallons per Minute per
square foot of filter area.
The following tables present the data obtained during the filter runs:
Table
Well # 4 Finished Water Quality
Column
Number
Iron Manganese pH
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
1 0.001 0.100 0.012 0.001 0.0420.0137.010 7.120 7.060
2 0.001 0.107 0.017 0.001 0.039 0.0087.0507.130 7.093
3 0.001 0.152 0.021 0.001 0.078 0.020 7.020 7.100 7.070
4 0.001 0.040 0.009 0.001 0.094 0.021 7.0207.080 7.047
Columns three and four were operated with aeration and 30 minutes of detention
with slightly lower average iron content, manganese averages were lower without
detention.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Aeration
Aeration was used on columns 3 and 4 with results that met the EPA Secondary
level for iron and manganese. The results were not as good the columns operated
without aeration.
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 7
5.2 30 Minute Detention
30 Minute Detention was provided on columns 3 and 4 with results that met the
EPA Secondary levels with both filter columns. The results again were not as
good as the results from the filters without detention.
5.3 Chlorine
Chlorine addition was used on both treatment trains with results on the iron
removal meeting the EPA Secondary levels for iron and manganese. The feed rate
for chlorine on columns 1 and 2 was 2.07 mg/I as chlorine. Columns 3 and 4 had a
chlorine feed rate of 2.44 as chlorine
5.4 Permanganate
Permanganate was used on all of the treatment trains with it being fed after
detention on columns 3 and 4 to allow the chlorine to fully react with the iron
before the addition of permanganate. The feed rate for permanganate for columns
1 and 2 was an average of 0.705 mg/1 and with detention the rate was 0/695 mg/l.
5.5 Filtration
Filtration on all columns met the EPA Secondary levels for both iron and
manganese with column number 2 averaging less than the other three columns.
Column number 2 was a greensand/anthracite media column. The average level of
iron was 0.017 mg/land manganese levels averaged 0.008 mg/l.
6.0 Recommendation
The pilot study found that the combination of chlorine feed followed by
permanganate feed provided the best oxidation of iron and manganese without
detention. The solids produced were able to be filtered at a rate of 3 gallons per
minute per square foot for a period of 27 hours. The filter that produced the best
results was a greensand/anthracite media filter without detention.
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 8
Pilot Study Report
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 9
CD
CD
Cr)1-r! 71:cD
taa
0
71-
CO
LO
(-A
rst
CD
tiD C,1
0 1111s pov
cm
cm
Ui N Li-) 0cia
1/2 LAI
0
CL.)_CCl
C cj47- u-
iji
o
in cr? in r`! Ui in
- d
IAA]
LU LI1
cz;
1PIN
Cr)
In
0
ca
cn oo N to Lt-, 71-
6 6
liSUM
4-1
0
01 CO N. 19 1.r)0 0 0 p CI C) p6 6 6 6 6 6
1/2 V11
Cr) NJ 7-1
i.
cJ cooo sr)
sepui
1
satpui
S O113 111
Appendix C
Treatment Alternative No.1
Gravity Filtration Layouts
*4/Onk.'1
.}
'Ts
SAAE\ \E,CCACO.,,,,,,ITER re,-EitrreV.TP LAX,ITSV,..0,97 -i. FUN A.0, PLOITEL, 8-17-2013 IrkIL1 AU
SAYEL, 6-17-.13 1.1. 1.1-5.. COW SOOPUi PLOr
VI•Az er.xt tne Fra;a:._Psea A tr., \BraA.
SHEET TITLE SEH FRE SO. A-E5007121106
0 2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN —
CHT PROTECT ?:0.
ISSUE DATE 06-06-13 WTP FEASIBILITY REPORT REPORT FIGURE __„,i,ST PK, WI SSIlaA.c, ssr.o•o_.,1GRAVITY FILTER
ALTERNATIVE
DESIGNED DE
OISK AN 6,0
,DIX
Cl.6
wra am OESC1,1144
FOR
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 1107 FOR CONSTRUCTION SEH .175: e_IILI.X.
RENSIOHS
S-VASW.T U,OUTS PR.S.3
St•ED: 6-14-2013 1 -02 U., 5,13U11.
>s,E, Aelat 7-Gccl•se, -ast.1,4••-A-re,
• ••••■••••■•■••••,,,,,,,,,,,,•••■•■•■■••■••■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•••■■■••■■■■■■■■■■■•• •••
SHEET TITLE Sal FILE NO. A.-000C1124404
.-A>2
9
GRAVITY FILTER LAYOUT —
MAIN FLOOR PLAN VlEV/
C.Ill' 1404E04 NO.
'SSU. r.. 06-06-13
D'''''''' ' XXX
010 40t CAS
WTP FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
REPORT FIGURE __21 1116 1.,••■5 LC•Tt, CRv pA, yn, ss,,,
.5 6,.....--.--'-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION5.14.flATE C.SCRPT■Gel SEHSr- vt 1:1,..t Nt.,...s.•-• Ir,l, (S.)REMSIONS
SIVE EOOLT COlOYON \OTTER TELATODIT TPASSUP LFTP LAMM \ PROCESSVP-.27-PROPOSED_PLOI_LPF.-A-PLV10. PLOTTELL
SALE11 E-14,313 11:15 COPP SP,OUTEN PLOT YALE
TFiErx ASITa‘i,ToolL,TO PoTACTTL-F,LaTI_PPol-A-re.0
SHEET TITLE SEH ME MO. 0-100011244116
IV T GRAVITY FILTER LAYOUT —
CRY PROJECT NO.
.SSn'E anE 05-06-13 WTP FEASIBILITY REPORT REPORT FIGURE __J../.....A.
2217 L227.2 CW..2 7 ..., 044100A.... 677,212:.>B tiEZZANINE PLAN VIEW DESX.E13 ST
DRAM! BY
xxx
cAs FOR
.772 P71.113-.3
ILL.CATE OTSCRPTPT1
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEH10058PP 000010 5010 (455(4.)RE,VONS
S.VSNEINEROCIVOin...A.TER SF.11.1. SESS.7■Vol7 LOCUTS.SOCESSW.T-F.POSSII-SECTIC.-1-A-SEMOSS
SA. 6,4.013 II:"
Aesse Lase-Pressistl_StsUssa-A-rs.0
RAM. 6-17,013 1093 AU
ROT SC.
5z
SHEET TIME SEH FILE NO. A-BROCT12■406
(../4>''±'9 GRAVITY FILTER LAYOUT —
SECTIONS
CITY PRO,ECT W.
ISSUE DATE 05-06-13
DEME0 Efr 7,70,
ORR. Ere C.
WI? FEASIBILITY REPORT
CENTER,BROOKLYN ENTER MINNESOTA.
REPORT FIGURE ST AISL. 1.0/15//0
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Sat D,It tie,..43, ,0 (S.)
VASA WE C.C.S.
REVISIONS SEH
.. •
CORRIDOR
0
0 m0
I NINE•■■
EVENS \ ERECT \ COUNNVATER TREANOR rEARNARNAIR LANLATSVENESS \SAREF-F
STAN 6-11-1313 TE22 ClARr
AVRIAVARATRATATI, ..\PATTNNTE-RcpTARNE,-ERAR-A-re.9
5-17,013 NAM NI0.01TM
FUAT SCALE
SHEET TTLE SEN ME NO. A-SR0CTI24406 .
-1,.2 GRAVITY FILTER LAYOUT —
CM PROJECT ND.
ISSUE DATE 06-06-13
DESIGNED BY JIM
WTP FEASIBILITY REPORT REPORT FIGURE / _....4.._........./.1 37 PA, . 35110.>9 SECTIONS DRAwn Br CAS FOR
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
A.. 651.4,12.,7
FAX 5.5..43.7.21:4
RTRN 6.1-ITINIT
WEE EVE LEYERRETY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEHERA. DEAN RANKTRATA. ANON.)REMIONS
Appendix D
Treatment Alternative No.2
Pressure Filtration Layouts
FLOM. 0-17-1/113 10:12 .41
0.LT Sr,.
trel**-
WEST RIVER ROAD
(HWY. 252)
-14
trktv,W=zt
Jr,
SHEET RTLE SEH FILE NO. A-E000T124406
C).s IT —CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
CRY PROJECT NO.
ISSUE NYE 06-06-13
OESCNE0 Rt
WTP FEASIBILITY REPORTFOR REPORT FIGURE _...)›_.....a 57 ,...1.. . 5.5110
PRESSURE FILTER CRAYrrl BY US BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA .rtt 1.1.13:4,15COALTERNATIVErtDOT. DESCI,T.13,1
SOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEH5.1--rt Er,lt Irlar,trit,..1. 1,, ON RDISIONS
S.VAB Ev,t1\M4NVATE9 MEMENT r.S.U1NOTP I,OViSWOCESS MOM. 6-17-.3 1.5 NI
S.r.f. 6-11-.13 11:50 All VD-MM:71
- S.VEVAeratesCea.,,,,,,,t, reta.A.TP
SliEET TrtrE Ulf FILE NO. A-EROC1,24406
-->2 PRESSURE FILTER LAYOUT
CITY PROJECT NO.
.S .E .-TE p FEASIBILITY REPORT REPORT FIGURE
CD B - MAIN FLOOR PLAN MEW Drs-'''ED ' xxx
DRAWN EY CAS FORBROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
.......a Ff..
.."31.4 >1.41
WER CIAIE CES,119,1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEH,r.rt. 0745 Fl,atiric.la, Ire. (MI REVISIO.
SAAE S ESOCT COWA,VDSSTPOnfltr ASADDADVD tAYOSIDFIASCASS DED-PACAOSS,SD.CACI-1-8-FLEVOD:.
SAVDS: A -IA 11Da 1.217 CA, SCHOIDEN
AADA e‘s -teatAart, S\AFADDreAt\ \ Ate TrArAn•ent r,AASTP LA,AsIASAAAVAAA-DA,A,Std,At-e-re.0
RUDD 6-17-2013 1,2•OS
SCAID
SHEET TITLE SEkl illE 140, A-BROCT12.06
CRY PROJECT NO.WTP FEASIBILITY REPORT fiNJco1'''PRESSURE FILTER LAYOUT- SECTIONS
'ss.' r.TE 06-06-13
DES,GUED BY XXX
0.. De CAS
FOR
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
REPORT FIGURE St PALL UV .710
!ilk .....1213.1._ L.,1111,,..3
WAS DAM DESCADTDI
DAR Dett HA,,,, VAA.ODD)
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SEH
.REVSXX1S .
S.V.A.VCINC.C....,,TFA 7..2NT 52.1.176,72 711.172 1,2202255 \ 95757-22224729,55271017,2-51-5.0.0
5.01 5-14-2017 11L0 .
)2.4 -\\-_ C5444-, \1617ler 7.214. 555.71A1172 14,151,5. \75.-2457.1_51511,4-0-re41
,01701 7-17-2017 10.5
1412/1.71L
SHEET TITLE SEH FILE no. A-00001124406
(..4a)"I'9 PRESSURE FILTER LAYOUT
- SECTIONS
CM' PROJECT NO.
'SWE I'''''.DESVIED BY
500H0 BY
06-06-13
XIX
CAS
WTP FEASIBILITY REPORT
FOR REPORT FIGURE
/IL
_.....-.,/ST PALIL. IN .110
PAPP-. NAJRAAPP:
BROOKLYN CENTER, )s4INNESOTA NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
- .1711 I...,00 (.2.)
11.4 VIE 5755,27.1
REP■SHHJS SEH ----A• AA,
Appendix E
Architectural Renderings
0
cr)
Vhit-P IVY `,NC II411111.17 D:01 f La■kg.):P MINIM t kill ',1)1:11 -2X_OW,A
07/15/2013 1234I43 PM i SVTPFwtty Report 13rooldr CenFer. Cnnnesota 07/15/13 I 651.490.= min I 658.006 8163 fat 1 35:1.5 Vadalds Ce-qler Dive 51. Fc301. 5.5.110
Appendix F
Cost Options
Gravity Filter Treatment Plant Cost Estimate - Garage, 1 MG Clearwell 7/15/2013
Percentage ofItem Unit Qty. Unit Wt. Unit Cost Total Cost Gen Discript. Bid Cost
Division 1 LS 0 $951,503.00 $951,503.00
Total Division 1
Division 2
Clearing/Grubbing LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,000.00Raw Water Main LF 1800 $200.00 $360,000.00Excavation/Earthwork LS 1 $400,000.00 $400,000.00Site Utilities LS 1 $900,000.00 $900,000.00Paving/Aggregate Base LS 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00Landscaping LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Total Division 2
$951,503.00 6.54%
$2,210,000.00 15.19%
Division 3
Vt/TP Cast in Place Concrete CV 2700 $675.00 $1,822,500.00Backwash Tanks CV 1100 $675.00 $742,500.00Cleanvell Concrete CV 2100 $675.00 $1,417,500.00
Precast Walls SF 9500 $40.00 $380,000.00Precast Roof Plank SF 15360 $15.00 $230,40000
Total Division 3 $4,592,900.00 31.58%
Division 4
Masonry SF 11000 $30.00 $330,000.00
Total Division 4 $330,000.00 2.27%
Division 5
Garage Joists and Decking LS1
1
$125,000.00 $125,000.00
Metal Fabrications (wall pipe, railings, lintels, etc.) LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00
Total Division 5 $425,000.00 2.92%
Division 6
Carpentry and Plastics LS $60,000.00 $80,000.00
Total Division 6 $80,000.00 0.55%
Division 7
Metal Roof System - trusses, sheathing, underlay, metal SF 3000 $35.00 $105,000.00
EPDM Roofing SF 20000 $12.00 $240,000.00FirestoppIng LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Miscellaneous LS 0 $50,000.00 $50,000.00Joint Sealants LS 0 $25,000.00 $25,000.00Dampproofing LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00
Total Division 7 $485,000.00 3.33%
Division 8
Doors and Windows LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Total Division 8 $200,000.00 1.38%
Division 9
Painting LI 1 $450,000.00 $450,000.00
Total Division 9 $450,000.00 3.09%
Division 10
Toilet Accessories/Specialties LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Total Division 10 $20,000.00 0.14%
Division 11
Gravity Filter Systems
High Service Pumps
Backwash Pump
Submersible Pumps
Chlorine Feed System
Sodium Permanganate Feed System
Fluoride Feed System
Blowers
Well Pump Conversions
1 $500,000.00 $500,000.005 $45,000.00 $225,000.00
2 $45,000.00 $90,000,006 $15,000.00 $90,000.001 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
1 $45,000.00 $45,000.001 $30,000.00 $30,000.002 $30,000.00 $60,000.00
5 $30,000.00 $150,000.00
Total Division 11 $1,265,000.00 8.70%
Division 12
Furnishings LS I $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Total Division 12 $50,000.00 0.34%
Division 13
Flow Meters LS I $70,000.00 $70,000.00
Total Division 13 $70,000.00 0.48%
Division 14
Hoists & Cranes LS 1 $65,000.00 $65,000.00
Total Division 14 $65,000.00 0.45%
Division 15
Interior Piping
Process Piping and Valves LS 1 $1,100,000.00 $1,100,00000
HVAC/Plumbing LS 1 $750,000.00 $750,000.00
Total Div. 15 $1,850,000.00 12.72%
Division 16
Electrical LS $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00
Total Division 16 $1,500,000.00 10.31%
Total Probable Construction Cost $14,544,403
10% Contingencies $1,454,440.30
Total Estimated Construction Costs $15,998,843
Pressure Filter Treatment Plant Cost Estimate / Garage
Item Unit Qty.
7/15/2013
Unit Wt. Unit Cost Total Cost Gen Discript.
Percentage of
Bid Cost
Division 1 LS 1 $931,224.00 $931,224.00
Total Division 1 $931,224.00 6.54%
Division 2
Clearing/Grubbing LS 1 $250,000.00 $250,0190.00
Raw Water Main LF 1900 $200.00 $360,000.00
Excavation/Earthwork LS 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Site Utilities I-S 1 $750,000.00 $750,000.00
Paving/Aggregate Base LS 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
Landscaping LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
otal Division 2 $1,860,000.00 13.07%
Division 3
WIR Cast In Place Concrete CY 1500 $675.00 $1,012,500.00
Backwash Tanks CV 1100 $675.00 $742,500.00
Precast Walls SF 13120 $40.00 $524,800.00
Precast Roof Plank IF 15360 $15.00 $230,400.00
Total Division 3 $2,510,200.00 17.63%
Division 4
Masonry IF 13000 $30.00 $390,000.00
Total Division 4 $390,000.00 2.74%
Division 5
Garage Joists and Decking LS 1 $125,000.00 $125,000.00
Metal Fabrications (wall pipe, railings, lintels, etc.)LS 1 $250,090.00 $250,000.00
Total Division 5 $375,000.00 2.63./o
Division 6
• rpentry and Plastics LS 1 $80,000.00 $80,000.00
Total Division 6 $80,000.00 0.56%
Division 7
Metal Roof System - trusses, sheathing, underlay, metal SF 3000 $35.00 $105,000.00
EPDM Roofing SF 20090 $12.00 $240,000.00
Firestopping LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Miscellaneous LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Int Sealants LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Dampproofing LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00
Total Division 7 $535,000.00 3.76./o
Division 8
Doors and Windows LS 1 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
°tat Division 8 $200,000.00 1.41%
Division 9
Painting LS 1 $600,000.00 $600,000.00
Toth] Division 9 $600,000.00 4.22%
Division 10
oilet Accessories/Specialties LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Total Division 10 $20,000.00 0.14%
Division 11
Pressure Filters EA 5 $460,000.00 $2,300,000.00
ubmersible Pumps EA 6 $18,000.00 $108,000.00
Chlorine Feed System LS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
Sodium Permanganate Feed System LS 1 $15,000.110 $45,000.00
Fluoride Feed System LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
Blowers EA 2 $30,000.00 $60,000.00
Total Division 11 $2,618,000.00 18.39./0
Division 12
Furnishings LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Total Division 12 $50,000.00 0.35%
Division 13
Flow Meters LS 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00
Total Division 13 $100,000.00 0.70%
Division 14
Hoisls &Cranes LS 1 $65,000.00 $65,000.00
otal Division 14 $65,000.00 0.46%
Division 15
Interior Piping
Process Piping and Valves LS 1 $1,900,000.00 $1,900,000.00
HVAC/Plumbing LS 1 $750,000.00 $750,000.00
otal Div. 15 $2,650,000.00 18.62%
Division 16
Electrical LS 1 $1,250,000.00 $1,250,000.00
Total Division 16 $1,250,000.00 8.78%
Total Probable Construction Cost $14,234,424
10 0/0 Contingencies $1,423,442.40
Total Estimated Construction Costs$15,657,866
74'.1 M
0 0L-0000010 co0,01000000N-6.-000000,-6006606 cico:4
E
<
7.1■000NWN,-. C9 64 64 64 64 M t&w 09
?t
(4
.f)18.:. 0..(22.,?.O cigE-11
. ,-0,7,0_c cm
0 La L00 M CON no (a-31nmnr--c000m in0 a6- _ott-molcomm
0 6,-,-,6qdr-: aa ulmaowomoo r--Ncom0t-6aotw
4- ,_NN(*(06,N< NE,.. . .. 0
8
•..c0 *6' E
2 8 8 ,, .=
w L tl,_ 7)8“().
1--- 0 ."'"9-g -Sct•13 ect2gE;ts.
>H 0 ITq) 0_2m, o
P .... W
1--
-J 8 *tr5
LU Lli
fra'°-
n .LU 0 66
IL" °5 ax
2Ecuoo2o0016maEoo,_tnent o to
Taffki°9-69-8m8P.(1 ,6 2,11,i c,;2n
6-0 000 co o8,mmm M 0 CD 0 ._•00 _..Lo o. 000226996660
t- 666 10_ up_ (--.1,-.
000 0
Z-9- w-o-u0e-w-mce—.3-
LUOW
M >CO
(5200.(1-_omoo8o8c°c,c)— on-60 ,-0000
a0—6, —0 0,06 0 r-T-7 csi9ocz,0t000ndo`'16 c000‘-'-'0 M. 8
-Oco -000 .,- .64 64 .N 64 U} CO M '° 64 - '` 64 M 64 'd- t`N 00 C-.011-. 600 -.0iN,', 69- '-'64 v-6464---•
00w0
>
ca2ooa0000li3owcoonoco..0
—0,00.-
0 00 0 00
Ui 0 t--.T■: •0
00000000(0000,--o
--000o o en‘° `"-- o = o64 6% N69-646464.0 69 --N-696464 .O.N-0) N CO0t- 6907 6-...0.
z,-; 09 64 M.,-.
02
I---a0Lt
12 —0000000000000000,850000000non00000n
...(90-00000000000000006469-m00000000000
, t=E
„,a
W
Ct
n8ct000000t000000000gno.0000600q00000000
8
n000000d0000000n
0000000000000460
NM
C)
a.
Ig.-,000000L00061--.66WmoEtls000000l'-(0 (0 0tommoEnol.000000agow r:oi
lx
0000000000o oo
0.0.0 0ui00060
LU C, N- ,,,(0og),-0N..00(0mmco...
(6. 660
_
D
6-0000001001000101010007j.010N-MLOMNNNMCONNN.70
6 6.-. c ..3 g g
r2L-
0t;),69-69-0
—1E1u.16,-CII--,W10,-,1
,79-8-421C2 SnE,Ce)C°0C°-- E'(--,-64wmu46464---,-m(s.,-
.
00 0 0 ooLOU) 'c.;-1 2 8 8 12 0c> t- CD CD Ul W)/0 .0111 1 /0
60)0036-,Nuimw
0 60
S'u'llta.., w 06%
<lx 0
o o to o czto
oo coo ooScogo nN °tn2oPE69-6,469- to- 64 -69 - W. - N - W - -LO ,,t C0 .9. N CO 0.64 64 (0 CA 00
W a'M NLOCOCOCHODIXI10 .4'INCD/00.0}0.com c7,oidOcIt-600dooc''°
0
B176 °9-a(7326-5 -c5o G000 q 0
a0 o1 6 266`'600quigggon.(1c_coot°coototo°
n o n oo90,°)A0R cA.2.00on 600
m _,,,1-03,1,,rotqwr-6.0.W00awm(0 00640,-6964ws-t-69-0 64 wm
a
g en• :2_,-21. 5
"2 .22 '5.5-gto2a 2137,_ g gPlc=-c2R.
2cflu8 i-,"
t',".g.gm2,Tfiga).55gg..2
8E8LLE;iff2 02W
S2 .°'6.8F-
-(00) NtHICOC--0300T-NC,2''''°'°
00C!CD CD CD
C,INN
II II
IL
II
a
co 0 _.,,r 00000nco 0 ("4-3-88888'
6 ;5,1:Oddddai= 0.-CONWNN-C4= ,-,646969646469
C 65-
Cx
LVIEIczia
CD r_
CO5 0)2cej - - cv
to ,t co LOT-.? <rolco-cocor•-
▪.- c`l C 01 a a
'4 .tE08E
CL 08 .n.,._
0. 111,_ 18e
.
E
•2 0-2gE 2 "-ci.
CLTg ? -E0a, ,-;..5T.' op.
ca LI!
'>'-'
In
ca
C•1
co
0
ca
0
0
0
O 0
c
7-1 7g0WE
o
-80
o c
O 0
O 0-
o c0of
0
•
-L0,12
u_
fr.
i1-
2-=
o 0.6 a
H 0X
....-ocao ,-000:fioo c.ima,g_acoomEoo0000s-,0a,,o m ,,,,co.5 03 ,cidd-Ocicid1.--dr--41 .0d-6.1.12mmmol,dco c\pg,.-(7.4-
Pa, 0 0) c*)00,,, ea o o c,
•cci od• m o o_. . co 6c 6.0 6. 6
6. to m,_ , ,-- ata- c, to- Z; EFT,s-64 64 64 64
.a,
w
mo,00‘-0000 00
>'-g
a-
5gq c1 66662ES"--qqqq&.Td>Rasaaaa6-6 ,0-TaaaI ,i
.--,.--, P o,---0 00 (0 . o r-oo••com a)6 r-•
•moo(:),--6
. c- En U4 - - toL-,,1 mei- a
L,'
iN asm—
o
C), 0T 2
W >—..ddocidOci'°66 d6664'mmmdmmmo,04
N. t--- o
6 dc . co. 001,-. r-•coODC) CD N- CD CD CD 0 66 0)6 CD C) C) c- a)C) CD 0 CD co ca ca CD C) 6o ._0 CD C) CO
(2) Nt--00cD '':,C24 s-C469 -
6-4
00,,F, .--
64 NM(0
a)
E
—m0LY
E —occoccoocomdoorocc—850000000000000000g.0(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6(6
aaaaaaa.69-aaaaaeoaa
In (u
wa
0
X
cE--0000000c0000000o85.0000000caoa000002oMOOdaciddgqdO666OO
oo
c
69-.0.rnivp....
(Vt.--0464
•
Z0
.E.0
it
1-gE,000000t9 0 .60086MM=8>000000itomOOOOOO .4.-q °1 01.66
'
00008,008S
°C1C10609.066
pOm 1,-.1■-1---
a 69- &a-64MM ,- s- oi o co,f 0 - N CO'-' Ul t° CV C5 40 C4 C7) En MM
az0)6,-;-0.6,6--‘,„ .,,,
D •
w M)0M1---)0M)ONNNMONNN,YM
,
ooma00000000amoo
-CC
0-00.<
CL UJ0
OS,
0.
(6"0)'00
,,,00C4)0 000 ,6m,r )0 ,_,C0
MOO 0 0000M0M0000000C't0M60ON00c),,,,ED,Nr-C00(0 )(0(0
T-. ''' W- 4 C) COO) 1-'2 N N ° CI .3 C.3 VIs-E46.69-646464646464064646464 64 M64
.
lit2
= 0 ,-,
<X0
=0.T0000000000 1'-_MONmr■
0 0 0000060cm60 0
M
(0(0(0(0(0(064 64 Eft 64 - 69 - 64 )0 Cq )0 CO - -M M s-m6OMEF) 64 646464
'cl".:cli.■''NO`C'",i'MODCO C.I.d..3))00E0C'00MC"3 1■MMN.T-°Mf--.6 6,-:csicq66,.46666 6 d
:.-.4no
0
76—c.c 66 6 6 .cD 6 ,-,6 m°
mca ‘--,-oto000'°0m1--.4.90000•-0,,MLE)
dc,0 co66..mo.00c 6 c 66
- -cm o co o--,o (D OCLCI-0 FaC) 0 p c,-moo - -6 - )0cs, .3 -C4C4 --')OCNIEON °60 ,-OD .DC104<2,- C`I (0) 60 ")'69•646464E464 Fa M C4.--60 (0 m tem
E%liggg:MEM;;,Lel
-9-1 ,as 2 10
DC , 2.3 „,,g
.4-t-', g77.,'-..2za gclj r,
113
'g0E,
ii r- N CO ,T )0 0 l'-. CO ai
*** REVISED ***
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION
September 23, 2013
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. Mission Statement Review
PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS
Later/Ongoing
1.Strategic Plan Annual Report for Year Ending 2012
2.BC University
3.Assessment Hearing Policy
4.Inclusion and Diversity Follow Up — Community Engagement Strategies
5. Consideration of Modifying Setback Requirements for Front Porches
Parking Lot Issues
1. Joint Meeting with Charter Commission
Work Session Agenda Item No. 1
MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: September 18, 2013
TO: City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manal '
SUBJECT: City Mission Statement
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding revisions
to the current Mission Statement.
Background:
At the retreat on April 5 th the Council and Management Team discussed the current Mission
Statement which states; Our mission is to ensure an attractive, clean, safe community that
enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust.
The retreat discussion resulted with a consensus that the mission statement should be revisited to
make it crisper and focused.
Monday we will review the current Mission Statement for the purpose of reaching consensus on
any changes that should be made.
I have enclosed additional background information that may be useful developing a revised
statement of mission.
Policy Issues:
Does proposed Mission Statement effective express our governmental purpose to our owners and
customers?
Strategic Priorities:
•Civic Engagement
•Community Image
•Focused Redevelopment
•Financial Stability
•Vibrant Neighborhoods
Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life
.for all people and preserves the public trust
The Mission Statement
There is a plethora of information available regarding the creation of a Mission Statement. In the highly
respected book Reinventing Government by Osborne and Gaebler, a full chapter is devoted to the
Mission-Driven Government. The authors report that Mission-driven governments offer many
advantages such as: Mission-driven organizations are more efficient than rule-driven organizations;
Mission-driven organizations are also more effective than rule-driven organizations: they produce better
results; Mission-driven organizations are more innovative than rule-driven organizations; Mission-driven
organizations are more flexible than rule-driven organizations; Mission-driven organizations have higher
morale than rule-driven organizations. (Enclosure)
John Carver the author and creator of "Policy Governance" a process for improving the effectiveness of
Nonprofit and Public Organizations in the earliest editions of his book Boards That Make a Difference
put forth the argument that "Stating a mission can be the most powerful single action a board takes or it
can be a waste of time". He goes on to say that "A powerful mission is a broad Ends statement with six
critical characteristics:
1.Results terminology
2.Succinctness
3.Authoritative generation
4.Horizontal integration
5.Ubiquity
6.Vertical integration
I have enclosed copies of his descriptions for each of these criteria.
I have also enclosed a few copies of sample Mission Statements from other cities and the Osseo School
District.
As you can imagine, there are numerous ways to develop a Mission Statement. Many "experts" will
argue that Mission Statement "buy-in' within the organization is important to achieving success. For
this reason I recommend that once the Council has drafted a proposed new mission statement that we
invite staff members to comment and offer any suggested modifications for your consideration and final
adoption.
Mission Statement examples:
It is our mission to provide for the common good and deliver services essential for a
safe, sustainable and engaged community.
Delivering services, being innovative, maintaining efficiencies, building confidence -
this is our mission and we're committed to doing it best.
We will foster respect for the past, plan for the future, and deliver high quality
services that contribute to a strong sense of community
We are dedicated to promoting and preserving the character of the community and
ensuring a high quality of life through professional public service provided in a
friendly, consistent, and fiscally responsible manner, emphasizing the best interest
of the community as a whole.
Our mission is to foster leadership, stewardship, responsive services and
community partnerships.
Mission Statement: Preserving our heritage, fostering opportunity, building
community and enhancing quality of life for all.
Work together to responsibly grow our community and provide cost-effective, and
efficient public services.
MISSION
Our mission is to inspire and prepare
all students with the confidence,
courage and competence
to achieve their dreams;
contribute to community;
and engage in a lifetime of learning.
Osseo Area Schools ISD 279 12/15/06
Mission-Driven Government 113
Those who rail against "waste, fraud, and abuse" should
think twice the next time a politician tells them we have to con-
trol the bureaucrats, so they don't waste our money. The very
control mechanisms those politicians support make waste—
staggering, monumental waste—inevitable.
THE ADVANTAGES OF
MISSION-DRIVEN GOVERNMENT
Mission-driven organizations turn their employees free to pur-
sue the organization's mission with the most effective methods
they can find. This has obvious advantages.
Mission-driven organizations are more efficient than
rule-driven organizations, for one. Louisville Housing Services
employs only one half-time consultant. The Family Housing
Fund had only one employee for 10 years; now it has three. St.
Paul, Visalia, Phoenix, Indianapolis—all are well below aver-
age in employees per capita. As Morton H. Halperin noted long
ago, bureaucracies are often happy to trade less money for
greater control.
Mission-driven organizations are also more effective than rule-
driven organizations: they produce better results. Look at the
contrast between Louisville Housing Services, or the Family
Housing Fund, and HUD. Or consider education. All the re-
search shows that administrative autonomy and clear goals are
critical to the success of schools. As East Harlem's Sy Fliegel puts
it, "Every school that is successful has a mission, has a dream."
Mission-driven organizations are more innovative than rule-
driven organizations. Rule-driven organizations stifle innova-
tion, because there is always some rule that stands in the way.
Stuart Butler and Anna Kondratas describe a classic example in
their book Out of the Poverty Trap. When a Philadelphia youth
gang decided to go straight, its leaders approached the city with
a proposal to rid the streets of abandoned cars. Who, after all,
knew more about stripping cars than their members? City ad-
ministrators were very interested, but one thing stood in the
114 REINVENTING GOVERNMENT
way: city rules required that the youths be insured—and who
would pay for the insurance? Frustrated, the gang went back to
the streets.
Mission-driven organizations are more flexible than rule-
driven organizations. If an agency performs a function that is
simple, patterned, and repetitive, its operations can effectively
be structured by rules. Even today, McDonald's restaurants are
run according to extremely precise rules. But less and less of
what government does is simple, patterned, and repetitive.
To take advantage of the unanticipated', organizations must
have flexible rules and budgets. Visalia bought a swimming
pool at half price because its employees were unencumbered by
line item budgets. Teachers in East Harlem are able to run effec-
tive schools because they have permission to break the rules.
"I'll tell you something," says East Harlem's Michael Fried-
man, pointing to a six-inch-thick book called Standard Operat-
ing Procedures, Board of Education, City of New York. "If you
had to follow that book, you could not run any one of these
schools. You could not do the special things that we do."
Mission-driven organizations have higher morale than rule-
driven organizations. A visitor to East Harlem's schools cannot
miss the esprit de corps, among both students and teachers. A
visitor to the Latimer administration in St. Paul quickly no-
ticed the same thing. It was, quite simply, one of the happiest
organizations we have ever encountered. And why not? A re-
cent recruit told us: "I was hired to come up with new ideas, I
was given a lot of slack and I was told not to worry about step-
ping on toes. They said, 'People won't hold it against you during
your honeymoon, and that may be the only way you'll get some
of your ideas done.'"
SCRAPING THE BARNACLES
OFF THE SHIP OF STAIE
How do we create mission-driven governments? The first task is
to scrape off the dead weight of accumulated rules, regulations,
and obsolete activities. Many people understand the need to
deregulate the private sector, but few apply the same thinking
Focusing on Results 65
our suppliers." This type of mission can be extremely useful,
even inspiring. I make no case against such a formulation
when I call upon boards to produce another kind of state-
ment. The two (this type and the one I propose) could, in
fact, coexist. Because the mission described in this book is a
different sort, there is a danger in using so familiar and widely
defined a label as mission. It is very important that nonprofit
and public boards develop the type of mission I describe. It is
very, unimportant that they call it mission.
Although Ends can be considered at various levels, it is
only the broadest expression that should initially concern a
board. Mission, defined as the briefest, broadest Ends state-
ment, does not determine everything about an organization's
ntended results; but it tells us the range within which all
further results will occur. Mission defines the arena and
answers the simple questions "What is this organization for?
How will the world be different as a result of our being in
business?"
What Makes a Powerful Mission
Stating a mission can be the most powerful single action a
board takes or it can be a waste of time. Not infrequently,
boards engage in meticulous mission-writing sessions. This
intense exercise takes much more time than most boards in-
tend, particularly in the light of the physical product. More
times than not, the completed work finds a quiet resting place
in a grant application, annual report, or brochure. It bothers
no one until it is time to find it, dust it off, and go through
the grueling project once again. Often, the board is driven by
one member who is sold on the importance of writing mis-
sion statements.
A powerful mission is a broad Ends statement with six
critical characteristics:
1. Results terminology: Mission 'should not be couched in
terms of the activities necessary to achieve some change.
It is the change itself that is the mission.
66 Boards That Make a Difference
2.Succinctness: A long statement usually means that a boa
has not come to terms with its mission. Long statements
clutter and smother the actual mission with explanation,
intended methods, and excess verbiage. The real mission
is often found buried in the several paragraphs, but
boards are hard pressed to identify it, and CEOs are not
able to organize around it. Ideally, the mission should be
stated in a few words, no more than a sentence.
3.Authoritative generation: The mission is too close to the
heart of governance for the board to act passively and
simply approve another's statement. If the board is not
actively involved in determining the mission, why should
it be involved in anything else?
4.Horizontal integration: The mission is developed from
the extraorganizational context by a board accountable to
an "ownership." That same ownership may have other
boards doing its business. There is disjointedness in
public service and weakening of the public fabric when
boards do not speak with other boards. There is no more
meaningful subject about which community boards can
converse than mission.
5.Ubiquity: Unless a mission is pervasive, it will lose its
compelling power in organizational affairs. It simply can-
not be repeated too much (which is another reason f ,
succinctness). The mission should appear on all clod,
ments, on the phones, and in the conference rooms. Live
with the mission.
6. Vertical integration: The mission must be the theme and
the backbone of the organization. An elegant mission
does little good if it is not connected to the goings-on of
the organization. The mission connects the board's job
with the CEO's job and thence to all others. Every depart-
ment, every program, every job, and every objective must
be tied to the mission. Placing the mission on this pedes-
tal is comparable in a summative sense to a "bottom line"
mentality. Because of their peculiar market status, non-
profit and public organizations have been able to develop
Focusing on Results 67
disjointed, internal islands of excellence that are not
forced to sum to a bottom line.
Examples of statements that fulfill the first two require-
ments are "a community free from poverty" (a community
action agency) and "every child a wanted child" (American
Birth Control League, then its successor, the Planned Parent-
hood Federation of America—though never as a formal mis-
sion). To accurately cover the "swap" aspect of Ends, the
actual policy document might add "at state of the art effi-
ciency" or other expectation pertinent to the acceptable cost
of producing the desired effect. This part could be omitted
when the mission is used for slogan purposes.
Expanding on the Mission
The first "vertical integration" takes place in the mission's
clear connection to further policies created by the board. The
board, not the CEO, is therefore likely to be the first to
expand upon mission, and it does this by creating a second
level of Ends policies, just one order of abstraction below the
mission itself.
I have argued for phrasing mission in a few carefully
chosen words, then adding more detailed policy statements
that further determine the organization's results. It is common
for boards to write paragraph- or page-long missions. Aside
from obscuring the focal mission statement, this conglomerate
form is far harder to debate and to amend. In contrast, mis-
sion-related expressions espoused here are in an articulated
form, that is, characterized by a progression of cautiously seg-
mented parts beginning with the broadest and moving to the
discrete parts. The process of deciding on "headings" before
"subheadings" (as in an outline) yields greater integrity in
establishing intended results than lumping results into an
undifferentiated mass. In effect, the articulation of results into
separable, descending parts yields a "value map" that both
boards and staffs find instructive, with respect not only to what
has already been resolved, but what is to be addressed next.
68 Boards That Make a Difference
The brief mission statement at the very highest, broa
est layer encompasses all further value choices about result,
Though unlikely, the board may choose to address no further
results after it has adopted a mission. If the board were to
agree that any reasonable interpretation of the mission lan-
guage by the CEO would be acceptable, then it need say no
more. That is, if all the possible priorities, choices, and costs
are acceptable, there is no reason for the board to narrow the
expected results by passing more policies. The board would
simply refrain from further pronouncements and allow the
CEO to resolve all submission choices among Ends. Most
boards are understandably reluctant to leave such broad issues
to the CEO, so they do not stop at this point.
The Ohio State Board of Education policy titled "Mis-
sion" (Exhibit 1) illustrates a slightly expanded mission state-
ment. The board collected in this statement the megaproduct of
the Department and, if you will, the three "product lines" or
major outputs. Note that the outputs are what the state agency
contributes to the whole of education; there is no pretense that
it is contributing what local school systems are producing.
Consumers, Products, and Costs
The board's next step after stating the mission is to discuss
which portions of the topic it wishes to define more narrowly.
Exhibit 1. Ohio State Board of Education Policy: "Mission."
This mission of the State Board of Education and the Ohio Department
of Education is Literate Ohio Citizens. Necessary to that mission,
consistent with the State Board's unique representation of citizens with
respect to education, and statutorily appropriate to the Ohio Department
of Education, there are three distinct Department contributions to Ohio.
Statewide Vision: There will be, enriched by diverse viewpoints, a
common public vision of what education is to be and to achieve in the
future.
Quality Outcomes: There will be statewide definition of quality in
education, and the actual achievement of that quality by Ohio school
districts.
Informed Decision Makers: There will be ample information about
realities and possibilities that enable the governor, general assembly,
and individual citizens to make informed judgments about education.
::::::::::::::::::
:
Focusing on Results 69
thereby reducing the submission latitude available to the
CEO. The board may choose to create further policy in one,
two, or all aspects of Ends.
Products. Mission statements are broad enough to encompass
a wide range of potential products. Products are the benefits
to be produced (cure, knowledge, broader employment base,
housing, job skills) or the accessibility/availability of the prod-
ucts (within every county, only a 1-800 call away, five days a
week).
As a trade association, the Metropolitan Indianapolis
Board of Realtors exists, as is clear in their "Purpose of
MIBOR" policy (Exhibit 2), so that members can thrive. Like
ie Ohio State Board of Education, the MIBOR board stated
.o priorities among the five outcomes. The Executive Direc-
tor would, therefore, have the right to make that decision, as
well as to decide, for example, just which skills will be empha-
sized in area 2. The board can, of course, create another policy
expanding upon any part(s) of this policy it wishes. It is
obvious how such expansion would reduce the executive direc-
tor's latitude.
Beneficiaries. Mission statements are broad enough to encom-
pass a wide range of potential beneficiaries. Beneficiaries
might bd differentially "targeted" by age, type of disorder or
Exhibit 2. Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors Policy:
"Purpose of MIBOR."
The mission of the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors is
enhanced demand for Realtor services. In pursuit of this mission, MIBOR
will bring about results in five areas:
1.A positive public image of Realtors.2.A highly skilled Realtor membership.
3.A favorable environment for Realtors' commerce in real estate.
4.Accurate and timely information and business tools for the conduct of
Realtors' business.
5. Free housing choice and equal professional services to all persons as
prescribed by the Voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreement and the
Code of Ethics of the National Association of Realtors.
STRATEGIC PLAN 2013 RETREAT FOLLOW UP — JUNE 24, 2013
A.VALUES AND MISSION
B.KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Craig Rapp, facilitator of the April 2013 City Council/EDA and Leadership Team two-day
retreat, stated the City Council/EDA and staff has done a lot of work to put together the details of
the Strategic Plan and identify five key priorities. Mr. Rapp reviewed the Key Performance
Indicator (KPI), measure, and target, noting this is a work plan for staff and provides details in
how it will get done. He asked if there are questions on the definitions.
The consensus of the City Council/EDA was to support the Strategic Priority Definitions.
Mr. Rapp noted the targets that remain to be identified and explained the need for a baseline and
follow up survey to create that target.
The City Council/EDA discussed how the target should be set, noting it should not be so high it
is unattainable, but some general assumptions can be made. Mr. Rapp suggested a 5-10%
increase would be reasonable. Mr. Boganey explained the percentage would be annually based.
The consensus of the City Council/EDA was to establish a 5% annual goal with a report back
each year and staff to indicate whether it thinks 5% would be unreasonable for some groups.
Mr. Rapp agreed the percentage can be adjusted once there are "more boots on the ground."
Mr. Rapp asked the City Council/EDA to address the KPI of blighted properties.
The City Council/EDA acknowledged this is a problematic measure because the City wants to
uphold and enforce community standards. Mr. Rapp explained the idea behind vagrant
neighborhoods is safety and the condition of properties. He noted in what the City Council/EDA
wants to monitor, the indicator would be blighted properties. What would be measured is
nuisance violations. Mr. Rapp asked if there is a different measure that should be considered,
noting the initiatives are on the positive side and the Maintenance Reduction Program is on the
enforcement side.
Mr. Boganey stated the target relates to the change in number of blighted properties, not code
violations and suggested working on the measure, the target, and to tie the target to a particular
condition instead of to the number of violations.
The City Council/EDA agreed this is an issue larger than rental properties and more focused on
neighborhoods of single-family houses. Mr. Rapp suggested a future discussion so that the
measure would be a blight condition index that is created and the target would be to reduce the
number of properties within the blight condition index. Then it would address all properties.
Councilmember/Commissioner Kleven stated another subdivision is vacant homes that are also
in a blighted condition. Mr. Rapp stated that could be one of the indexes that is scored.
Mr. Boganey stated staff will draft this information for the City Council' s/EDA' s review.
Mr. Rapp next addressed Secondary Value Propositions, noting operational excellence is the
value proposition but with more pronounced definition, that desired value was a customer
intimate approach.
The City Council/EDA indicated it remained comfortable with that Secondary Value
Proposition.
Mr. Rapp stated the City Council/EDA had a good list of values but a general realization was
reached that there may be too many value statements that should be further discussed. Similarly,
with the mission statement, it should be a separate discussion.
Mr. Boganey asked if the Mission Statement is a topic that the City Council/EDA wants to
address this year in another Work Session.
The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to request staff to schedule discussion of
the Mission Statement at a future Work Session.