Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016 02-22 CCP Regular Session
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 22, 2016 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 Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center February 22, 2016 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.February 8, 2016— Study Session 2.February 8, 2016 - Regular Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Declaring Fire Fighter/Fire Inspector-Educator in a Dual Position d.Annual Report on Franchise Fees e.Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 22, 2016 7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations —None. 8.Public Hearings a. An Interim Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City —This item was first read on January 25, 2016; published in the official newspaper on February 4, 2016, and is offered this evening for Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: —Motion to open Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt ordinance. 9.Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002, Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools - ISD No. 281 Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval for New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School (5421 Brooklyn Boulevard). The Planning Commission recommended (unanimous) approval of this Application at its October 29, 2015, meeting. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002, Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools - ISD No. 281 Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval for New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School (located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 10.Council Consideration Items a. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License 1. 1425 55th Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Mayor poli audience for applicant to address Council. —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license application and mitigation plan. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 22, 2016 b. Charter Commission Submission of Recommended Amendments to the City Charter Requested Council Action: —Motion to receive Charter Commission recommendations. —Council review and discuss amendments. —Motion to direct Staff to draft Charter amendment ordinance. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Limiting the Residency Location of Certain Predatory Offenders Requested Council Action: —Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for March 28, 2016. 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION February 22, 2016 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. TH 252 Corridor Study Update PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.Paperless Packets Report 2.Opportunities for Small and Diverse Businesses 3. New Rental Dwelling License Moratorium City Council Agenda Item No. 6a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION FEBRUARY 8,2016 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Myszkowski asked for an explanation of the applicants' numerical rating system for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds under Agenda Item No. 8a. Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson stated that all the applicants scored high and the City had received good applications. Councilmember Ryan stated that there were very qualified applicants this year with a good track record of being capable of meeting all of the reporting requirements. Mr. Anderson agreed that most of the applicants had some experience with funding sources and grants. Councilmember Myszkowski pointed out a phrase that was repeated several times in the Yes, Inc. application. She wondered if it was an endorsement by the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. Discussion took place regarding conversations between Youth Success Coaching (Yes, Inc.) and Brooklyn Bridge Alliance; the Alliance's efforts to find ways to build the capacity of other organizations; what Yes, Inc. is bringing to the table as a service provider; and, the anticipated presentation by Yes, Inc. at tonight's meeting. Councilmember Ryan talked about working with Habitat for Humanity. 02/08/16 -1- DRAFT Mr. Boganey suggested that the City should evaluate its participation in funding public services after this year given the limitations that exist and the fact that the City will never be as helpful as it would like to be. Mayor Willson stated that he thinks it is valuable to support this organization. He commented that Food and Nutrition Services (CAPT USA) and Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN) are geared toward the Laos and Hmong population within the City. He stated that he struggles with Yes, Inc. because he doesn't think they have a well-established program and support from other entities. He stated that the Student Afterschool Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber Bay/Youth Investment Foundation) was focused on afterschool programs and that is a need. He asked if more entities would be added to Option Two next year. Mr. Boganey stated that Hennepin County has said that four organizations is the maximum and $7,500 is the lowest grant amount unless the organization is funded by another CDBG fund and these are the parameters to work with. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates the need for re-evaluations. He talked about the amount of work done by volunteers in the Meals on Wheels (CEAP) organization. He asked if we can justify a contribution if there is a gap in our immediate area. Discussion took place regarding the maximum amount of entities that could receive funds and Mr. Boganey stated that staff could get more clarification from the county. Councilmember Graves talked about the number of years that the City has funded certain programs. She thinks they are good programs, especially CEAP. She stated that Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) and Tenant Advocacy Services (HOME Line) are good programs but are located outside of the City and serving other cities. She feels like there is a monopoly when something has been the same for many years especially considering that there can only be three or four grantees. She thinks that this should be discussed and asked if the City Council agreed. Mayor Willson stated he doesn't look at the years, but what the service is and if there is a need for the service, he is all for it. He stated that there is a huge need for the services of H.O.M.E, CEAP, and HOME Line and last year Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth) was added. He stated that the City Council has agreed in the past that they want to force-multiply those dollars. These organizations are larger than the local organization so they have more resources to draw from. Councilmember Ryan thanked Councilmember Graves for raising the issue. He suggested that the representatives of H.O.M.E. and HOME Line should be asked if the City's contribution is proportionate to their activities in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Boganey stated that any recipient that receives CDBG funds has to show the County that they are using funds to service Brooklyn Center residents. 02/08/16 -2- DRAFT Mayor Willson stated he is not opposed to talking about this issue, but is pointing out his thought process. Councilmember Graves stated that she doesn't think past fund distributions have been bad decisions. She talked about possible favoritism and making sure everyone is getting an opportunity. Mayor Willson stated that he objects to the term favoritism because he purposely steers away from it and looks at the services that are provided. Councilmember Graves responded that after 20 years, people are going to think that. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she looks at how many people are being served and possible redundancies. She stated that CEAP and H.O.M.E have benefited from CDBG money, but they serve our elderly community and she would not take them off. Councilmember Myszkowski stated that this grant money is a small amount of money in a very low-income community and the organizations probably do feel like it is favoritism when we say no. But the City Council has to make a hard decision and they are focused in on the three that have been funded the longest. The City Council does the best it can with the money but it is not enough and the expectations are skewed. Mayor Willson asked Mr. Boganey if he was saying that we should not continue with the CDBG program. Mr. Boganey replied that would be in the staffs best interest if they could have a Work Session to explore options and alternatives that are available and hopefully come to a City Council consensus. When the application process for next year is developed, it can be written based upon the City Council's consensus of importance. It would also be helpful for applicants to know the criteria. Mayor Willson stated that this is an on-going issue and he is not opposed to sitting down with staff and working on the issue, but the City Council is charged with making a decision and all applications have to be accepted. He stated he is not sure what direction Mr. Boganey is going with criteria when looking at the applications. Mr. Boganey replied that when you look at the application process and you look at the improved quality of the applicants, you find that there are significantly more quality applicants than in the past. The applicants could get frustrated and stop applying or we will continue to reject good applications. He thinks it would be worth it for the City Council to have a conversation with staff so that they can write an application that helps differentiate one applicant from the next. Mr. Boganey pointed out that if we wind up with seven or eight qualified applicants and we keep coming back to the same three or four that we have previously funded, people would question what it is about those that we keep funding and what differentiates them. He asked if we can be more explicit in the RFPs. 02/08/16 -3- DRAFT Mayor Willson stated he is looking at the services an organization provides and doesn't care whether they have been funded by the City for 20 years; if he feels they meet a community need, he will vote for them. Councilmember Ryan recalled that Yes, Inc. was definitely of the opinion that they were presenting something that aligned with the City Council's goals and they claimed they were reaching the same youth as Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. That would drive them to ask us why they are not receiving grants. He stated that what we have given in the past really reflects the priorities we have for the limited money. Councilmember Graves stated that we are staying with the bigger organizations because they serve more people and we are putting money where we can get more for it. She stated that she would like to go with organizations that look like our community. She is not trying to change the game plan but is asking for debate and discussion. ADJOURNMENT The Study Session adjourned to Informal Open Forum with the City Council at 6:45 p.m. 02/08/16 -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 FEBRUARY 8, 2016 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 April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Jane Sandberg, 3413 Woodbine Lane, spoke regarding the proposed sidewalk at 72' and Woodbine. She stated that putting in the sidewalk creates a false sense of safety for children. She stated that she has observed the corner for 40 years and feels that the two existing midbloek crossings are sufficient and that the sidewalks would steer children to the intersection and into danger. She would like the vote to be re-addressed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:52 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2.INVOCATION Councilmember Myszkowski offered the invocation. 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 02/08/16 -1- DRAFT Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6.APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Myszkowski 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.January 25, 2016— Study Session 2.January 25, 2016 - Regular Session 3. January 25, 2016 - Work Session 6b. LICENSES FIREWORKS PERMANENT Diamond Lake 1994 dba Cub Foods MECHANICAL Aerostar Heating and Air, LLC All Systems Mechanical, LLC Comfort Matters Heating & Cooling RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE II— two-year license) 4806 Twin Lake Avenue Passed w/weather deferral RENEWAL (TYPE III— one-year license) 361347 1h Avenue North, Ryan Creek Manor Passed w/weather deferral 320063 rd Avenue North 3901 Burquest Lane 6925 Regent Avenue North Passed w/weather deferral RENEWAL (TYPE II— two-year license) 3245 County Road No. 10 871 22nd Street SW. Buffalo 2282 Terminal Road, Roseville 11238 River Road NE, Hanover Craig Muckenhirn Drew Kabanuk Adedamola Ogundipe Edwin Ngang Paul Cameron 02/08/16 -2- DRAFT 5327-29 Queen Avenue North 6337 Bryant Avenue North 4019 Joyce Lane 7030 Regent Avenue North Passed w/weather deferral 4118 Woodbine Lane 5931 Zenith Avenue North Passed w/weather deferral RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license)5 3 id Avenue North 4703 68' Avenue North 2741 Freeway Boulevard 6930 Newton Avenue North 6124 Scott Avenue North Alvin Stachowski My Truong Invitation Homes Douglas Allen Wahl Ron & Jeanette Blasewitz Invitation Homes Lake Pointe Apartments, LLC Bernard McDonough Motel 6, 1460 Desra Widdel Invitation Homes 6c.APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE CHURCH OF ST. ALPHONSUS, 7025 HALIFAX AVENUE NORTH, FOR A SOCIAL EVENT TO BE HELD MARCH 12, 2016 6d.RESOLUTION NO. 2016-25 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS AND DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-26 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF JUDY THORBUS FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE HOUSING COMMISSION Mayor Willson read in full a Resolution expressing recognition and appreciation of Ms. Thorbus' service on the Housing Commission. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-26 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Judy Thorbus for Her Dedicated Public Service on the Housing Commission. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that the Park and Recreation Commission is getting a really good Commissioner. Mayor Willson commented that Ms. Thorbus has always been dedicated and done well on the Housing Commission. 02/08/16 -3- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. PROPOSED USE OF 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS This item was first read on January 11, 2016; published in the official newspaper on January 21, 2016; and is offered this evening for Public Hearing. City Manager Curt Boganey introduced Deputy Director/HRA Specialist Jesse Anderson. Mr. Anderson provided background and an overview of the grant process; information on the 2015 and 2016 fund distributions; and census tracts. He requested direction from the City Council regarding allocation of the CDBG funds. The following agencies submitted for the CDBG Public Service Agency activities/program funding: Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) (Senior Community Services) • Requesting $10,000 • Has been a part of the City's CDBG program for 21 years. Meals on Wheels (CEAP) • Requesting $15,000 • Has been a part of the City's CDBG program for 16 years. Tenant Advocacy Services (HOME Line) • Requesting $8,122 • Has been a part of the City's CDBG program for 8 years. Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth) • Requesting $10,000 • Has been a part of the City's CDBG program for 2 years. Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI USA) • Requesting $3,684 • Has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN) • Requesting $5,000 • Has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. Youth Success Coaching (Yes, Inc.) • Requesting $10,000 • Has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. 02/08/16 -4- DRAFT Student Afterschool Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber Bay/Youth Investment Foundation) • Requesting $20,000 • Has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. Mr. Boganey went over the two options available to the City Council. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) (Senior Community Services) Representative Valerie Anderson spoke of the number of chore programs for seniors that have been closing their doors in the last few years and that is why the H.O.M.E. program has expanded. She stated that the support from local cities has provided them with a solid foundation and she thanked the City Council for the financial support and partnership. She stated that the number of seniors in Brooklyn Center stands at over 5,000 and the demand for services is growing. She stated that they helped 68 Brooklyn Center seniors this year with the help of volunteers and that volunteers are the backbone of the organization. She talked about the continuing partnership with Brooklyn Center Fire Department assisting with smoke and CO2 detectors, etc. She stated that the services the organization provides help seniors to stay in their homes and that seniors feel safe with their workers. She told a story of a senior that needed her home's exterior painted and how thrilled she was and how she was no longer embarrassed by the exterior of her home. Councilmember Ryan asked if there is greater demand in the community for the services than there are volunteers and money. Ms. Anderson answered affirmatively and will follow-up with Councilmember Ryan with specific numbers. Mayor Willson commented that seniors comprising one-sixth of the population of Brooklyn Center is a high ratio. Councilmember Graves asked about the services the organization provides. Ms. Anderson replied that the organization has a home program, partners with senior centers, has social workers and caregiver outreach, medical insurance counseling, and a variety of other services for seniors and caregivers. Mr. Boganey thanked the applicant for clarifying that the CO2 program with the Brooklyn Center Fire Department would be continued. Meals on Wheels (CEAP) Representative Jill Pettit talked about the number of seniors they serve. She stated that volunteers deliver hot and culturally appropriate meals directly to homes, interact with seniors and do a health check. She stated that this program helps seniors stay in their homes and that 02/08/16 -5- DRAFT CEAP is dedicated to the seniors in Brooklyn Center through their partnership with Hennepin County and the Osseo School District. They will be piloting a frozen meal program to provide additional meals and 120 seniors in Brooklyn Center use Meals on Wheels. Seniors can also get weekend meals. Meals on Wheels has been serving meals for 30 years and the need will continue to grow with the amount of seniors in Brooklyn Center. Mayor Willson asked about the culturally appropriate meals. Ms. Petit replied that they serve culturally and nutritionally appropriate meals based on a screening process. Mayor Willson commented on the newer program that provides a meal on the weekends. He stated that there is a huge need for seniors to be able to eat on the weekend. Councilmember Ryan asked if CEAP has good connections with the County. Ms. Petit replied affirmatively. Councilmember Ryan asked if the organization had the capability to identify additional needs in the community and if they can communicate them to the City and the County. Ms. Pettit replied affirmatively and stated that they have a good relationship with the County. Councilmember Ryan stated that he is pleased the City can contribute but it is a small player. As local elected officials, we can communicate needs to the federal level. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson commented on her mother-in-law's recent passing and the meals that were provided. She stated her support for the organization. Ms. Pettit stated that the most common thank you note received at CEAP is from seniors regarding the extra touches provided by the volunteers. Tenant Advocacy Services (HOME Line) Representative Mike Vraa stated that the organization provides services to renters in the entire State. He stated that 173 Brooklyn Center residents contacted them last year. Their primary role is to inform renters of their rights and responsibilities. They also do a series of speeches regarding the roles of landlords. He stated that the organization has enjoyed long-term support from the City. Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth) No representative in attendance. Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI USA) No representative in attendance. Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN) Representative Sunny Chanthanouvong stated that there is a large population of Laotians in the City and his organization provides direction and assistance with housing. He talked about the work they do with clients that experience housing issues due to a crisis and the help they provide to clients in navigating the MNsure program. He stated that the organization became a HUD 02/08/16 -6- DRAFT certified agency in 2009. He stated that the organization plans to provide services to 120-130 clients and that the organization applied for funds from the City last year but did not receive them. Councilmember Ryan spoke about the worthiness of the organization providing assistance to clients to navigate the MNsure system. He asked how many clients they have helped with that. Mr. Chanthanouvong replied that they help people with as many issues as they can. Councilmember Graves encouraged the organization to keep providing services. She asked them not to give up even if they don't get the grant this year. Youth Success Coaching (Yes, Inc.)Representative Evan Reminick and (Yes, Inc.) founder Duannah Siryon addressed the City Council. Mr. Reminick stated that they had requested funds last year and that there had been some concern that their efforts were duplicative of those of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. He reported that they have worked extensively with the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance on their organization's planning and they have been mentored by them on best practices. They have developed a model and have entered the grant and fundraising world. They have received a block grant from the City of Brooklyn Park to do program planning and have recently received some local TV coverage on a tutoring program they established in apartment complexes in Brooklyn Park. Their main program of interest is overall success coaching for youth in the communities and they see tutoring as a great way to start. Their ultimate destination is an overall guide for youth on civic engagement, college admission, career paths and home ownership within the communities they live. They hope to receive a CDBG grant allocation to plant seeds for future success. Mayor Willson commented he was given an iPad to donate at a mayors' conference and he donated it to the Yes, Inc. organization. Mr. Siryon thanked the Mayor for his donation. Student Afterschool Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber Bay/Youth Investment Foundation)Representative Wayne Thyren stated that his organization has been in the City of Brooklyn Park and now he is exclusively working in the City of Brooklyn Center. He stated that Timber Bay has been around since 1970 and does a lot of mentoring at schools and after school five days a week. They offer support groups for teens and parents and operate Timber Bay Camp in Mille Lacs. He talked about the Athletics to Academics program that improves how students do in school. After their tutoring session, students can come to open gym. He talked about an app that allows them to track students' success and reported that 27% of students involved in the program have increased their math scores and 34% of students have increased their English scores. They also provide transportation. He told a story of a student from Liberia who was offered a job and then a scholarship by a volunteer mentor. 02/08/16 -7- DRAFT Mr. Siryon talked about a mobile homework program that has been started by Yes, Inc. in Brooklyn Park and duplicated in Brooklyn Center. He told the story of a child that received failing grades on his homework when helped by his parent but when he was helped by a program volunteer he passed. That child expressed his gratitude for their help. Mr. Siryon expressed his hope that the City Council could help with funding. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves pointed out that the large population of youth and elderly in the City and the added strategic goal to strengthen and empower youth. She talked about more support being given to youth. She stated that she is not choosing one over the other but would like to see more funding going towards younger residents, which is a larger population. Councilmember Ryan confirmed with Mr. Boganey that the City currently grants out of its general funds $50,000 to support the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. Mr. Boganey confirmed this amount. Councilmember Ryan stated that he thinks that shows that within our limited resources we are putting our money where our commitment is in a general sense. He stated that it is an anomaly for the City Council to struggle with who they give the limited CDBG dollars to when this is primarily a function of the State and administered through the County. He stated that under the CDBG restrictions, they are only allowed to spend 15 percent of the total allotment on each entity and the County prefers that they choose three providers and no more than four. They are also supposed to make minimum allocations of $7,500. He stated his appreciation of Councilmember Graves's comments about supporting youth and does not want to get in a situation where we are choosing between demographics. He stated he felt it was necessary to convey to the public that there is a limited amount that the City Council can distribute and there are constraints on how it is distributed. Councilmember Myszkowski stated she prefers Option Two, but her concern is that because we are not to exceed three entities the County would say no and we would have to inform one of the entities that they can't get the dollars. She stated that she completely agrees with Councilmember Graves that we have to find more balance between the youth and the elderly. Mr. Boganey stated that staff's view is that the County would approve awarding to four entities. If the City Council decides to award to five entities, then staff would make direct contact with Hennepin County to determine if there is an issue. Councilmember Ryan emphasized that if he had the money to distribute he would like grant funds to all applicants. Councilmember Ryan moved to accept staffs Option One recommendation. 02/08/16 -8- DRAFT There was no second to the motion. The motion failed. Mayor Willson stated the City Council could direct staff to contact Hennepin County to see if they would accept Option Two. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that if youth is a priority, the City Council would need to go with Option Two. Mayor Willson stated that he struggles with awarding to four or five entities. He stated that Timber Bay is providing a program that no one else is and to him that may be a good balance with youth and elderly on the grant. He stated he wishes the City had more money to distribute. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to direct staff to prepare allocation of the 2016 CDBG funds based on Option Two for formal approval at the February 22, 2016, City Council meeting and to direct staff to check with Hennepin County on the appropriate number of entities. Councilmember Myszkowski disclosed that she sits on the board of CEAP. Councilmember Ryan stated that his advocacy for Option One is purely tactical. The reason he wants Option One is that the organizations under that option are quite stressed for funding. He stated he would support the consensus but would be voting against Option Two. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that we can push the limits and award funds to five entities. She talked about past issues where the City Council has pushed the boundaries including the rental ordinance, the Level III Sex Offender Moratorium, etc. Councilmember Ryan stated that if staff gets feedback from the County that five entities are acceptable, then he would support the resolution. Mayor Willson stated that he has donated to Yes, Inc. and it is a very hard decision with the small amount of CDBG dollars but he tends to lean towards Option Two as well. He wants to hear about the conversation with the County. He stated he has read through the documentation and a couple of the organizations would probably qualify for the minimum $3,500 grant and that could be a possibility next year, but this year he would go with Option Two. Councilmember Ryan voting against the same. Motion passed. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None 10.COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS lOa. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSES 02/08/16 -9- DRAFT Mayor Willson explained the streamlined process used to consider Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental Licenses. Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide testimony on any of the rental licenses as listed on tonight's meeting agenda. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion on Agenda Items 1 0a1 through 1 0a7. lOal. 5916 ALDRICH AVENUE NORTH 10a2. 5748 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH 100. 3349 49TH AVENUE NORTH 10a4. 5332 LILAC DRIVE NORTH 10a5. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-27 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6319 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 10a6. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-28 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5025 DREW AVENUE NORTH 10a7. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-29 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5333 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for the following: 5916 Aldrich Avenue North; 5748 Humboldt Avenue North; 3349 49th Avenue North; 5332 Lilac Drive North; and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-27 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 6319 Brooklyn Boulevard, RESOLUTION NO. 2016-28 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5025 Drew Avenue North; and, RESOLUTION NO. 2016-29 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5333 Dupont Avenue North, with the requirement that the mitigation plans and all applicable ordinances must be strictly adhered to before renewal licenses would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. lOb. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO SERVE ON HOUSING COMMISSION Mayor Willson requested the City Council to consider ratification of the Mayoral appointment of Tamika Baskin, 6042 Ewing Avenue North, to the Housing Commission with a term to expire December 31, 2018. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to ratify the Mayoral appointment of Tamika Baskin to the Housing Commission. Motion passed unanimously. 02/08/16 -10- DRAFT 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • January 26, 2016: Minneapolis Northwest Convention and Visitor's Bureau • January 26, 27, 28, 2016: TH 252 Corridor Study Open House • January 28, 2016: Brooklyn Center Business Association Luncheon • January 30, 2016: Legislative Breakfast • February 4, 2016: Former City Attorney Charlie LeFevere's Funeral • February 7, 2016: Brooklyn Center Lions Club Waffle Breakfast • February 9, 2016: Northwest Cities Program Interview Councilmember Msyzkowski reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • January 30, 2016: Asian New Year's Celebration at Park Center Senior High • February 7, 2016: Brooklyn Center Lions Club Waffle Breakfast Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • January 26, 2016: Multicultural Advisory Committee Meeting • January 30, 2016: Asian New Year's Celebration at Park Center Senior High Councilmember Graves reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • January 26, 2016: Multicultural Advisory Committee Meeting • January 30, 2016: Legislative Breakfast • January 30, 2016: Attended the Grand Opening of Savour Tea Lounge in Brooklyn Park • February 9, 2016: Chaired the Northside Youth Collaborative Meeting • February 16, 2016: Meeting with the Brooklyn Center School District Social Studies Curriculum Design Committee • February 18, 2016: Attending the Young Elected Officials Climate Justice Policy Academy Councilmember Graves reported she had learned that the City has had a relationship with Flint, Michigan, in the past concerning charter schools and it was suggested to her that it would nice for the City to send a letter expressing support. She said if Council Members are interested, she could provide a transcript of the voice mail she received from Barb Jensen. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • January 29, 2016: Cable 12 Mayor's Two Minute Program • January 30, 2016: Legislative Breakfast • January 30, 2016: Compassionate Care Bill Hearing • February 7, 2016: Lions Club Waffle Breakfast 12. ADJOURNMENT 02/08/16 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:33 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 02/08/16 -12- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b DATE: February 16, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Rozlyn Tousignant, Deputy City Cler SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses on February 22, 2016. 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 C & M Heating Construction Mechanical Service E & J Heating & Cooling Inc. RENTAL See attached report. 13862 Wintergreen Street, Andover 1875 Buerkle Road, White Bear Lake 1616 37th Street SE, Buffalo Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust i1tk[iJ I N I I MYA L'A I k7A (1) 1I UIJ'A1 Rental License Category Criteria Policy - Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I - 3 Year 1-2 units Type II - 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 Type III - 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV - 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 Impact 3-4 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust o ^:4o ^h40 ^:40 140 ^^40 ^4000000 4 ^4 ^Z ^e 1 ^40 ^i/-00^41 0 0 000 0 000000 0 00 1.1 =—---===-->=== z I 0 0 1 0 1 -0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I • • I— . a)LI a) cCO cCa U)(I)=C c CaCO0 LI - E-1E .0 -u 2 0 Ca 0-Ca .i p - a,)c.aa,C Ca CO._a,Q -a,>NJ 2 a-00 2 a- E C 1 If).0)4 a) -WE w —Ca a)a)()0)0)0)a)a)a)0)0)a)a)0)-' c ccc c c c c cc C C a)0)0)a)0)a)a)0)a)0)a)0)a)a)- =C ___o:____ E E EEE E EEEEEE E EE COLL.CaLL COLL CaLL.CaU CaLL COLL CaLL.COLL.COL.L COLL CaLL CaLL COLL LLCOC,)c aj a)0)a)0)Cl)a)a)0)0)-a)a)-00 -00 - 00 00 00 00 00 bID 01)bID 00 00 00 biD COcccccccccE- VI U)VIV)U)U) a)Ca) a)a)Z 0)- -0)C 41Ca 4-,Ca a)Z ZZz Z z Z a)Z Z 0)>'- 0-4-,a 0)> -D ai a)MD ØJa)(l)c <0 c C > <<U.. > 5 5 .i .c 0 0 c C -.> I-4 1I)) - - a -41.c:C41 0 3EEECaW E E 30-1 -D -m -0 N 00 -C>LOa)Oa)1.O(D U N 00 cn .o m 0)-4 0)00N 0N 00N 00 )LI)"t -10 uUN0)0 Ca 4-N a)4—CaN 0)fl r N Ct Cfl 00 00 m N Ca0 0)0 r)U LI)m 0 m- 0 -1.0 n N 1.0 1.0 LI)m - 0 N N * Caa,>- v-I a)CL cca) ai >-N >- a, I-a) 4-,CL >- 0- -a Ca _O a) >CL a) Ca 0 LI -o .0a, c0 C,)10, 4-' ,) CC C-- > CI) LIa, a) a) C', S-a- c CU >- a) C', I- •a, U,c -a- LI 0 * 0- * * —** City Council Agenda Item No. 6c iEI1II[iJ fl I )h'A LU *4 (I) 1IWJk'AI DATE: February 2, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Lee Gatlin, Fire Chief ' SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Fire Fighter/Fire Inspector-Educator in a Dual Position Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution Declaring Fire Inspector/Educator in a Dual Position. Background: In the 2016 budget, the fire department was granted a full time position for a Fire Inspector/Educator. The purpose of the Fire Inspector/Educator is to perform fire inspections and enforce all codes, ordinances and standards relating to fire and life safety for all structures within the City of Brooklyn Center. Written into the essential duties of this position was that of responding to fire calls and operating in the capacity of a firefighter. The fire response was written into the duties to assist the Fire Chief and the Deputy Fire Chief with responding to daytime calls and to reduce the need for firefighters that are employed by public works to respond to non-emergency calls. As the fire department has continued to struggle with day available firefighters, we need to have this individual included as part of our daytime firefighting staff. This will increase the number of personnel responding to an incident in a timely manner. Emergency call response will take priority over inspection duties when the two coincide. Because the Fire Inspector's primary job function is responding to fire calls, this position meets the necessary criteria to be included in the Police and Fire PERA Plan. We are requesting that the attached resolution be adopted to certify this as a dual position which would allow this position to participate in Police & Fire PERA and respond in the capacity of a firefighter. Budget Issues: This position was originally budgeted for inclusion in the Police and Fire Plan. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING FIRE FIGHTER/FIRE INSPECTOR- EDUCATOR IN A DUAL POSITION WHEREAS, the policy of the State of Minnesota as declared in Minn. Stat. Section 353.63 is to give special consideration to firefighters who are required to perform hazardous work and who devote their time and skills to protecting the property and personal safety of others; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 permits the governing body of the governmental subdivision to request coverage in the Public Employees Police and Fire Plan for all services rendered by an employee holding a fire service position that requires firefighting on a primary basis and related non-fire firefighting duties on a secondary basis; provided further, that none of the firefighting services rendered by the employee are earning credits in a relief association that operates under Chapter 424A; and WHEREAS, for a governing body to declare to the Public Employees Retirement Association that a fire department position with dual roles is that of a firefighter who is eligible to participate in the Police Fire Plan, the duties and training qualification of the position and employee must meet the following minimum requirements: 1.The position requires and the employee holds a Firefighter I or Firefighter II state certification or meets equivalent training standards established by the fire department; and 2.The primary services of the position are firefighting. Primary is understood to mean the highest priority task and job requirement that the employee respond on a regular basis to fire calls (and medical emergencies if applicable) that are received at the fire station which the employee is assigned during employee's established work hours. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the position titled Fire Inspector/Educator currently held by Brandon Gautsch is for primary services that of a firefighter who qualifies for members in the Police and Fire Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota hereby requests that the employee holding this position be accepted as a member of the Police and Fire Plan effective the date of this employee's initial Police and Fire Plan salary deduction by the governmental subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. February 22, 2016 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. 6d [EI1lI[iJ I U V I aW4 L I [I) 1I P1SJ'A I DATE: February 22, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director SUBJECT: Annual Report on Franchise Fees Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive the annual report on franchise fees given below. Background: As a condition of the ordinances adopted to establish and implement the franchise fees on Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy, staff is required to report to the City Council annually on the collection of franchise fees. This memorandum will serve that purpose. No formal action is required at this time. The 2015 fiscal year was the 12th year for collection of franchise fees from Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy. Receipts for the year from each of the franchisees were as follows: Company Date 05/04/2015 Received $ 99,640.79 1st Qtr.Xcel Energy Xcel Energy 08/04/2015 97,985.03 2nd Qtr. Xcel Energy 11/03/2015 99,110.92 3rd Qtr. Xcel Energy 02/05/2016 - 100,769.09 4th Qtr. Subtotal $397,505.83 2015 CenterPoint Energy 04/27/2015 $ 64,315.83 lst Qtr. CenterPoint Energy 07/21/2015 64,175.17 2nd Qtr. CenterPoint Energy 10/27/2015 63,727.51 3rd Qtr. CenterPoint Energy 01/25/2016 63,923.25 4th Qtr. Subtotal $256,141.76 2015 TOTAL 65 3,6 47 .5 9 2015 Budget Issues: All dollars received from the franchise fees were receipted to the Street Reconstruction Fund for use in the repair and reconstruction of city streets. All remaining funds at year-end will be carried forward in the fund for future repair and reconstruction of city streets. Strategic Priorities: • Key Infrastructure Investments 4'lission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the pit blic trust City Council Agenda Item No. 6e COUNCI{L ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards SUBJECT: Proposed Use of 2016 Community Development Block Grant Funds and Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution Approving Use of Funds for 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program, Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements. Background: A Public Hearing was held on February 8, 2016 in accordance with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) requirements. The City Council received public input and reviewed information regarding the CDBG funding allocation for 2016 CDBG year. At the meeting, the City Council made a recommendation for staff to prepare a resolution to approve funding. The final approval will be submitted to Hennepin County by February 26, 2016. Further, staff has discussed the acceptable number of Public Service Agencies with Hennepin County and Hennepin County has approved Brooklyn Center to fund five public service agencies. Hennepin County did inform staff that since Timber Bay is not a multi-city agency they will have to be monitored by City Staff rather than Hennepin County Staff and all funds will be processed through Brooklyn Center for Timber Bay reimbursements. RESOLUTION A resolution has been prepared for City Council's consideration to approve the 2016 CDBG program. Funding for the 2016 CDBG program would be available July 1, 2016 and CDBG funds must be spent no later than June 30, 2017. Total preliminary City Allocation for CDBG Program Year 2016 is estimated at last year's final allocation of $258,779. Per City Council direction, the following allocation for Program Year ')fll f iipliirleA hi the fcichM rsn1iitinn reflecting the amounts indicated in the chart below. • .City CouncilCDBG Activity Requested Allocation Public Services ($38,817 Max) H.O.M.E. Program (Senior Community Services)$7,829 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves (lie public trust COUNCIUL ITEM MEMORANDUM Meals on Wheels (CEAP)$7,829 Tenant Advocacy Program (HOME Line)$7,829 Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth)$7,829 Student after School Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber Bay/Youth Investment Foundation) $7 Total Public Services $38,816 Non-Public Service Agencies City of Brooklyn Center Neighborhood Stabilization/Code Enforcement 000 Home Rehabilitation Program Total CDOG Funds $69,963 $258,779 The resolution included with this memorandum also authorizes signature of a Subrecipient Agreement, which is the agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Brooklyn Center relative to CDBG funds. In addition, it authorizes any third party agreements that would be executed between the City and third party vendors such as any public service providers. These agreements are standardized agreements developed by Hennepin County and will be submitted after approval of the City's 2016 CDBG program. Additional background information can be found in the attached February 8, 2016 Council Item Memorandum. Budget Issues: CDBG funds are exclusively federal dollars. Strategic Priorities: o Vibrant Neighborhoods Attachments: Attachment I - Resolution Attachment II - February 8, 2016 Council Item Memorandum Tr'Iission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2016 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center held a Public Hearing on February 8, 2016 to obtain the view of citizens on housing and community development needs and priorities and the City's proposed use of $258,779 from the 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a Subrecipient community in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Subrecipient Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County, the City agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the utilization of Community Development Block Grant funds; and WHEREAS, a notice to solicit public comment was published and comments were solicited for a period of 10 days, ending on February 8, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that it approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. RESOLUTION NO. Project Budget Senior Community Services H.O.M.E. Program $7,829 CEAP Meals on Wheels Program $7,829 HOME Line Tenant Advocacy Program $7,829 Avenues for Homeless Youth Brooklyn Avenues Program $7,829 Brooklyn Center Timber Bay/Youth Investment Foundation $7,500 Student after School Counseling and Activities Program City of Brooklyn Center Neighborhood Stabilization/Code Enforcement $150,000 Activity Home Rehabilitation Program (Rehabilitation of Private Property)$69,963 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and its City Manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 2016 CDBG Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should the final amount of FY2016 CDBG available to the City be different from the amount provided to the City, the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to adjust project budget(s) to reflect an increase or decrease in funding. 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. Attachment II -Council Memo from Public Hearing held on February 8, 2016 (Page Intentionally Left Blank) :Eo1sJ[iJ IU I V ak'A r3 I Ik'4 0) 1II aiji DATE: February 8, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Use of 2016 Community Development Block Grant Funds Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council conduct the Public Hearing and accept input from the public regarding Use of Funds for 2016 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Staff requests direction from the Council regarding allocation of the CDBG funds. Based on the feedback, staff will prepare resolutions for approval at the February 22, 2016 City Council Meeting. Background: Brooklyn Center is one of 40 Hennepin County cities participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. With the CDBG program, federal dollars from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are awarded to Hennepin County and are allocated to participating cities on a formula basis. Therefore, the City of Brooklyn Center is considered a Subrecipient of CDBG funding. This Public Hearing meets the requirements of the Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan and HUD requirements. CDBG Statutory and Administrative Requirements Federal CDBG Statutory Requirements The federal authorizing statute for the CDBG program requires that each funded CDBG activity meet one of three national objectives: 1.Benefiting low income persons 2.Preventing or eliminating slums and/or blight 3. Meeting urgent community needs. The federal law also specifies that each recipient receiving funds must insure at least 70 percent of the CDBG expenditures during the program year be used for activities benefiting low and/or very low income persons. Each city must meet this requirement at the local level. We do not yet know the amount of CDBG allocation for 2016. Therefore, we have been advised to consider the 2015 CDBG allocation of $258,779 for the allocation amount in 2016. However, this allocation amount could be adjusted. Based on this amount, $181,145.30 of the total allocation must be expended on programs and services directly benefiting low income persons in order to meet the 70 percent requirement. Low income persons are defined as persons with IiJissio,z: Eizsiiiing an attractive, clean, safe conununity that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public ui'iist [SIi1IkLSJ I U I I ahYA U I DJ4 LI) 1I IJ I incomes ranging from 30 to 50 percent (very low income) to 80 percent (low income) of the median household income in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area as defined by HUD. Currently, the 80% median household income level is $46,100 for one person and $65,800 for a family of four. If a city chooses to allocate CDBG funds to eligible public service activities, the amount is limited to a maximum of 15% of CDBG funding. A city is not obligated to provide any funding to public service agencies. Hennepin County Administrative Requirements for Public Service Activities Pursuant to federal program requirements, each city receiving a CDBG allocation from the Urban Hennepin County CDBG program is limited to a 15% cap on public service projects if the city chooses to allocate funds to public service agencies. Based on the estimated allocation for 2016, the maximum amount of CDBG funds that can be allocated to public service activities is $38,817, which is 15% of the City's 2016 CDBG allocation. Other guidance provided by Hennepin County for the disbursement of CDBG funds follows: No more than three public service activities should be undertaken in each city receiving CDBG funds. The City has the flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their CDBG allocation to fund eligible, priority public services. Any public services not previously funded must be new services or a substantial increase in a service. The CDBG funds are not intended to replace other funds. o Each Public Service activity should have a budget of at least $7,500. If funds are committed by other cities to carry out a single activity of mutual interest, this limit may not apply. CEAP, H.O.M.E. Program (Senior Community Services), Avenues for Homeless Youth, and HOMELine are considered multi-city activities or county-wide activities at this time. o CDBG activities must address a high priority need according to the County's Consolidated Plan for affordable housing, community development, and human services. Cities funding activities that are not high priorities under the consolidated plan must explain why the project is needed in their city. The H.O.M.E. Program (Senior Community Services), Meal on Wheels (CEAP), the Tenant Advocacy Program (HOMELine), Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth), Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN), Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI USA),Youth Success Coaching (Yes, Inc), and Student after School Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber bay/Youth Investment Foundation) are categorized as public service projects. The CDBG Funding History Chart, Appendix 1, shows the City's funding allocation for CDBG funds from the years 2003-2015. Tktissio,z: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life (Lad preserves the public trust EI1BJ[IJ I fl U N lW4 U'A I D (0) 1I )1IJ'A I 2016 CDBG Applicants The following agencies submitted for CDBG Public Service Agency activities/program funding. Household outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) (Senior Community Services), 2016 request is $10,000 to continue the H.O.M.E. Program in Brooklyn Center. The proposal anticipates serving 75 seniors, at a rate of $133.33 per person. Details of Senior Community Services H.O.M.E. Program are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. This program has been part of the City's CDBG program for 21 years. Meal on Wheels (CEAP) 2016 request is $15,000 to continue the Meals on Wheels Program in Brooklyn Center. The proposal anticipates serving 100 seniors, at a rate of $150 per person. Details on the CEAP Meals on Wheels are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. This program has been part of the City's CDBG program for 16 years. Tenant Advocacy Services (HOME Line) 2016 request is $8,122 to provide funding for HOMELine's Tenant Advocacy Services Program. The proposal anticipates serving 433 people, at a rate of $18.75 per person. Details on HOMELine's request are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. This program has been part of the City's CDBG program for 8 years. Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth), 2016 request is $10,000 to fund Shelter and transitional housing programs with support services serving homeless youth in the northwest suburbs. The proposal anticipates serving 86 youth, at a rate of $116.27 per person. Details of Avenues for Homeless Youth request for funding are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. This program has been part of the City's CDBG program for 2 years. Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI USA), 2016 request is $3,684 to fund the Food and Nutrition Services program. The proposal anticipates serving 100 people, at a rate of $36.84 per person. Details of CAPI USA's request are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. CAPT USA has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. o Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN), 2016 request is $5,000 to fund the Housing Counseling Services Training and assistance. The proposal anticipates serving 25 people, at a rate of $200 per person. Details of Lao Assistance Center of MN request are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. Lao Assistance Center of MN has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. o Youth Success Coaching (Yes, mc), 2016 request is $10,000 to fund the youth coaching/life skills program. The proposal anticipates serving 30 youth, at a rate of Mission: Ensuiing an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust S[I1IJ[IJ I I I k'A S'A I *4 0) 1II 1IJ'A I $333.33 per person. Details of YES, Inc request are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. PRO USA has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. • Student after School Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber bay/Youth Investment Foundation), 2016 request is $20,000 to fund an after school counseling and activities program at Brooklyn Center Secondary Schools. The proposal anticipates serving 150 youth, at a rate of $133.33 per person. Details of Brooklyn Center Timber bay/Youth Investment Foundations request are provided in their attached "2016 CDBG Request for Funding" form. This program has not received previous funding from the City's CDBG program. The following programs are proposed to receive CDBG funding categorized as Non-Public Service Projects. o City of Brooklyn Center Neighborhood Stabilization/ Code Enforcement Program 2016 request is $150,000 to address foreclosed and vacant properties and arrest the decline of neighborhoods in the City. This program provides services throughout the city, including all low and moderate income levels. Details on the CDBG Code Enforcement activity are provided in the attached "2016 Request for Funding" form. This would be the seventh year of funding for the neighborhood stabilization code enforcement activity. o Home Rehabilitation Program (Rehabilitation of Private Property). If the Neighborhood Stabilization/City Code Enforcement Program is approved and the maximum public service amount of 15% is awarded to any or all of the public service requests, there would be $69,962 available to allocate to this program from the 2016 preliminary CDBG allocation. This amount would be used to address emergency items such as furnace replacement, water and sewer service repair, etc. for individual properties. The Home Rehabilitation program has been part of the City's CDBG program since CDBG was first created in the mid 1970's. Public Hearing The attached Public Hearing notice was published in the January 21, 2016 edition of the Brooklyn Center Sun Post newspaper. Hennepin County requires a Public Hearing be held regarding the use of CDBG funds. Further, the 2016 CDBG programs must be submitted to Hennepin County by February 26, 2016. Funding for the 2016 CDBG program would be made available by July 1, 2016 and CDBG funds must be spent no later than December 31, 2017 (within 18 months). However, we encourage all CDBG recipients to implement the program and use the funds within twelve months for accounting and performance purposes. Representatives of the public service agencies that applied for CDBG funding have been notified of the Public Hearing. Options for 2016 CDBG Allocations The total preliminary 2016 City Allocation for Public Service Agencies for CDBG Program Year 2016 (July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017) is $38,817. There are inadequate CDBG funds to accommodate the total number of requests the City has received for Public Service Agencies. Mission: Ensuring on attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNC]IL I[TEM MEMORANDUM Further, more than three Public Service Agencies, recommended limit by the County, have submitted requests for funding. Therefore, staff has prepared two options for consideration for CDBG Program Year 2016. After Council feedback, a resolution will be prepared for the February 22, 2016 City Council meeting. Requested Option I Option 2 CDBG Activity Amount (Similar to last (Even year rates)Distribution) Public Services ($38,817 Max) H.O.M.E. Program (Senior $10,000 $10,000 $7,829Community Services) Meals on Wheels (CEAP)$15,000 $10,695 $7,829 Tenant Advocacy Program (HOME $8,122 $8,122 $7,829 Line) Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for $10,000 10, 000 $7,829 Homeless Youth) Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI-$3,684 $0 $0USA) Housing Counseling Services (Lao-$5,000 $0 $0Assistance Center of MN) Youth Success Coaching (Yes, I n c)$10,000 $0 $0 Student after School Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber $20,000 $0 $7,500 bay/Youth Investment Foundation) $81,806 Total Public Services ($42,990 Over $38,817 $38,816 15% allowed) ________ Non-Public Services City of Brooklyn Center Neighborhood Stabilization! Code $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 Enforcement Home Rehabilitation Program $69,963 $69,963 $69,963 $301,769 Total CDBG Funds ($42,990 Over $258,779 $258,779 Budget) Option #1 is based on their alignment with City priorities, County Plan, and federal program requirements similar to last year's consideration. Option 92 is based on alignment with City Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life amid preserves the public trust [i1SJh[.1 I V 3k74 U'A I &'4 0) UI I1SI'A I priorities, County Plan, and federal program requirements adding a youth program and primarily equal funding distribution. The rating system for Public Service activities was developed and implemented for 2014. This year's applicants generally met the application criteria. The following criteria were used for rating the public service programs based on their applications: Does the program meet the CDBG requirements (federal and county)? 2.Does the program fulfill community needs? 3.How does the program align with City goals? 4.Has the organization demonstrated the ability to successfully implement a program using CDBG funds? 5.What is the overall budget for the program and does it have other funding sources to ensure sustainability? 6.Are there similar services already provided by existing agencies within the community? 7.What is the ease of access of its services to the community? I.e. Location of agency, methods of contact, etc. 8. Is the application submittal complete and submitted by the deadline? Budget Issues: CDBG funds are federal dollars. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Attachments: Attachment I Attachment II Attachment III Attachment IV Attachment V Attachment VI Attachment VII Attachment VIII Attachment IX Attachment X Attachment XI - Funding History - H.O.M.E. Program (Senior Community Services) Application - Meal on Wheels (CEAP) Application - Tenant Advocacy Program (HOME line) Application - Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth) Application - Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI USA) Application - Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN) Application - Success Plan (Pro USA) Application - Neighborhood Stabilization/Code Enforcement Request for Funding - Hennepin County CDBG Fund Memo - Affidavit of Publication of Public Hearing Notice Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life an(!preserves the public trust 3 a)00ci) (I d a,00 cm 0 LU -N- -0 0 C 0 C C Q o Q °.°.000 O 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 CO CO LU C•'.l +U..Ut i-.1.0 oLU aCO -CO c'jLU co0 --LU 2 61"-)CC\,)]C-4 >1 C,ACCToll 0) LIG m 0 C I o00 ajU)C0 C 00000000000 >.0 EdCCCCO0 °.0a)a,C 0 0 C N-N C ii —(ft (ft (ft -(A-(A (A-< L] oQC--I-..C'.0 U 6 CO>L ALI ci)0)C 0 0q C0 Cq CC-j0)00 LU CO LU CE0N-LU LU LU cv')Cv')I (ft (A (A <A- iuL) —•Cl) 0C CC C CC N CC 0 C 00 N 00 00dCCCCC 0C,CQC LUN- C0 C 003CO C0 - CD o C0 LU CD CO 0) CC LU C0 LUC C0CO- 0 LU. C0 C LU.- C0 CO 00000' N-U)000 0 C - CC CO 0 oC cv') CC C C CC 1 00 C _ILL __LLLL1JL C\F C4 1 PLJLEE iifUiii[IfiPi ififififiP11 LL!IWiL!JLIIL!JL Cl) .o Z COCv') -CN CCv') -CN CC)N -CN L5rCON-00) CCO .CN LUN -CN - -CN N-CO CCN LU-coCCN N-N CCN LU- CCN O?)Cv?)LUCO COCO CCN 0)N CCN LUCO CCN i 0CDCDCD0CDI-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UPPHHHH PJLJHPLL Pd c'1 - ME E I. 03>0 ct >- -d 00aco I 0 v 0)rCC.0. -d 1-vI)000)000).2 CCCd 0 0 U -o- — 0)0)* ) Attachment II - Hennepin County CDBG Fund Memo Hennephi Cotmty , [cd:r [ri:cT 701 FruKh i:n'j 1'jth Suit-, 400 irinp:li. Iiirfl!(t 55$15-114 DATE: JanLiaruy5, 2016 TO: Urban Hennepin County Direct Allocation Cities From: Thrni Bayne- Kuczmarski, Senior Planning Analyst Subject: Request for 2016 Hennepin County COEG Funding 34t-71UF hnriç ii u The deadline for submitting request for funding materials is 4:00 pm February 26, 2016. Please schedule your public hearing accordingly in order to meet this deadline. This email is the only notice your organization will receivefrom Hennepin County regarding the funding request process for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Please forvard this information to other staff within your organization as applicable. The following items are being sent as attachments - Estimated Allocation by City • Requestfor Funding Form • Sample Noticeof Public Hearing • Sample Resolution a Priority Needs 2015 - 2015 Consolidated Plan Map of Low/Mod Block Groups • Current Income Limits GENERAL UPDATE 1.HUD continues to place emphasis on the ability of awardees to exper,d ftr,ds awarded to meet their "timeliness expenditure goals." The standard term of the CDBG Agreements is from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. 2.The County has not received notification of its 2016 CDB 0 grant amount therefore, the 2015 allocation (see attachment) should be used as an estim ate for planning purposes. Please make sure to prepare for both an increase and a decreaseinthefundirkg. CON SOLI DATED PLAN: FUN DING PRIORITY ACTIVITIES Eligible activities include acquisition of property, rehabilitation of existing housing, construction of public facilities and infrastructure, public services, code enforcement, demolition, clearrup of brownfields, fair housing services, and down payment assistarceforfirst-time homebuyers. Use of CDEG funds to address local needs must be consistent with priorities identified in the 20154019 consolidated Plan. Consequently, individual cities do not need to apply for rehabilitationfunding for their residents. CDBG REOUREMENTS The use of federal CDBG funding will triggervari ous requirements depending upon the type of activity being funded. The following is only attended as an outline: Environmental Review Lead Based Paint Federal Labor Standards Procurement AccessibilityStandards in Section 504 of the RehabilitationActof 1973 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies ACT (Urforni Act or IRA) r Financial Management Affirmatively Further Fair Housing—As a recipient of HUDfunds, Hennepin County and participating cities must affirmativelyfurtherfairhousing. Hennepin County encourages all cities to be proactive by addressingimpediments to fair housing choice intheir cities. To continue its support of the countywide fair housing efforts Hennepin county will allocate funds from its administrative budget for fair housing services. Prioritized service arethose identified in the Regional Analysis of Impediments including outreach, counselirg and referral services, training and education programs and enforcement of fair housing laws and ordinances. Cities are strongly encouraged to support similarefforts withintheir community using CDB and/or local funds. To find out more about CDBG regulations, review the BasicallvCDbG guide or searchthe federal regulations at 24 CFR Part 570. WW/MODERATE-INCOIJE BENEFIT The primary national objective of CDBG is to benefit low and moderate-income persons. As such, Hennepin county must ensure that atleast7O percent of the funding is used forthis purpose. Verification that low to moderate-income persons are being served is required current income limits attached). Depending on the activity, low to moderate-income persons may receive a direct benefit or neighborhood benefit. See attached mapfor eligible low to moderate-income block groups for activities that benefit all residents of an area. If a city would like to use CDBG funding to eliminate slums or blight, please contact Tami.Eavne- hucamarskif)hennepin.us. Replacementof lower-income affordable housing and reversion of assets requirements may apply. FUNDING PUBUC SERVICES Cities have the flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their CDBG allocation to fund eligible, priority public services. Any public services not previously funded must be new services or a substantial increase in a service. The CDBG funds are not intended to replete other funds. AD NI lIIISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Each activityshould have a budget of atleest$7,500. When funds erecommitted by other cities to carry out a single activity of mutual interest such as a public serviceactivity, the allocation should not be I ess than $3,500. Comm unities are strongly encouraged to develop joint initiatives to address mutual needs by consolidating their resources. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1.Prior to February 26, 2016, publicize and conduct a public hearing and adopt a council resolution on the proposed use of CDE funds. A sample public hearing notice and resolution are enclosed. The resolution includes lenguegeauthorizing the execution of subrecipient arid third party agreements. 2.Complete request for funding form(s) using the correct Excel tab (non-public service or public service). Useone forrnfor each activity. Hennepin county staff will revieweachactMtyto determine CDBG eligibility, program benefit and the relationship to consolidated plan priorities. S. Email the public hearing notice, affidavit of publication, council resolution, minutes from public hearing and request for funding form(s) toTarni.BavneKucamar5ldheflr1ePifl.U5 by 4:00 pm February 26, 2D16. Attachment III - Affidavit of Publication of Public Hearing Notice AEFJJi}tViT OF PU1JLLC&TJON SMIE OF dlNNESOt' ) ({)UNFY 01:1 WNUMN (:hr:ei \i'l 1:c;i!?. 11111)' i?.'&11f1 &1r CIII 1u1Ca or tli11I? LIti1 li:isha i.i r.'a: iLl:;I4.1h Ll?sir!IrtLc,:1 A?.ciIi 'II Ilw iir':r1'.I Iirc,cii SP Ilu(nI1:Iv1 C1,1I1rocLI,1 l'ek frill lhc knov.v c,liic of k,ei hei:ie k::itctl in r.1:e Ct, rIi 11: [-I ENNE I' iN IIilh aldilic,iri ,:iilIi;ilj')tl in iire (C,lIlitI(-i çf LI I7'N[I1N fad Iirr liii I hnarrhrlee' ':1 IIic farir,'rt:rte'i (A) '[he lv.a', pe .r lur emill0d ':diii Ill 11 -ic r('.'riLjI(Ii,lhi Lxxislilulinp, qrL?ILIIC:I. 1!<In ri a qua Iiid l)ewei.:Ip:r a. (11) 'thu Prti;i: i'a Iice'aai iiriti:d rrlRI ul::- ii iici in s;u Id rIefrfr PaIN) c-0o' l '.'(eh;, ror 1 cii ciai,c' rck(s); iii, first iIlerlLari ha rici 111 I! I I. rued ii:e kusi jujn hjuiuiur ''ii (I/2 1,2111 C,. MORTC;AuL F0RICI .OSULIL N0hICLS I:eia,it ii, Nliuuu;:r:.ia Stat. C5[).7 tC1ru'asi1 1' tIe 1.ihI:.icIr ci' tartef'c lc.i'acla.rnea nalk.i The ip.i'u.er calph, ii lii (Iii r:I:IiII[ustu rk'c:ii:,ih in I, t,l:iuce (I) or 12. Ii' il -a kuiciwii c'll:aa or iaae is la,,'a -d in E couciy ndj-drlhlg tire coin ,ty t'J cia 6.'. iuiar:igagcd or ''tn'a pitri of the niei'rpiged 1:'Iullccc due:nL'vih iii to mHo al iu'.rriad a raiscirihial pifflion ii tr is in the Iater coeliN: Cii 'rt:,tcd Ai''ur iii, otIjr,t turd rociuntu to or ofI,niuu,ed h:lhr: nil- on ifi 121/2U II liv Cb'.rien: W.1d. 6 11p)PIENE rIE t1AC?r1iJ1SIJ'k r'Iotarj PubI;C''i1IIi00O1a 1tlyora1rcierconIr'lt Jci 51, 19)10 Lu?.' htilutItlthit (Ii J_oou,'ci. sIiaifet lila 1u,i_ct I-n' r,uuuvr'niyl Incas Itt SIC, Vii P r colunni jail Ad ID 4')S5i-3 My of lirooMyn Center iffrlI11UNUR11IMUCE OF PIJflLIC i1/ifUNG OFTY or fl[OOI(LVN CtNTU1 2013 U11t17,fJ itcitrIEPIN COUNtY C0Mr,tfJt11Y UEVO1OFMEICT OLOCK GRANT PHOONAT 9 toP' iilerru ,leI ('ru I) ly ru initJ5u' CTu'k'u ii i.vfrJ- nnunr, 14111 Fi1,uflpiul O'.uflhi',[uSual ii Tilir I O hI h-klLcflj n! Ccuiu:ujrit E'aaaaprrnr± MI C 1074, icc IIrrCci,ofr. C a RIISIic ticcuriruli ni I-olson,' 3, rJIiu, ol P'fl. Q '5 ff0? illicr is III? ro'.Inr wso Li I ccii, ul 11cc h1r•acAI,'u Couk-e Civ MA rCOl ef.NrOIr Cr?sIr Puu'.,'.'ue, lircollys Ciu'.ru I'IIc)tieJ. Pie PuL'ltr I lecrii:g Is acole thu lucirli urd crrrruiu.ccly rIcnlri- nu?r'h 'uxcic arri Icur. Cr/u uropccn1 urIc :t thur.nnhmird ?JIt UrIyun I-lrrr.cp, Ccauriy t?rnuunuriti DC- oCprirvl urI (cccii PiOD'.l' ehnurlro aUor,aIicnoIS2Sh,?72. 1110 'bIn Heo'irrl fl L0'u kuIJ 11cr-clrj to IVS 4? I ,1r , - u-r, e:i' iii HrroMi (ikC hirrmnr9c 10 MUM Ia hulkis'- (IT flfflir,iliula ruihI 2010 ULall I hurt- rflpin C.riur.t1 CC.IIG IL -sir ,turi:nT 'Jul Sf1 ahtcuuh ,IJIt T, EfCO, ansi anit CccliteTtr0 Fiu'ruu,i Priuuni E3I$:l1 PuLlic iin-lsu J'4Jr.flcir.tu $111111 Itrrhcc,ticci $1 EliOTO Fir Iii 70 I For a,lllou un inticrit;ix,rr uiL'cul tI.i 1ff'Iltihur. p:::LcrIi ;tcTi,Ihr,curly1 Iiruilnj ucla (tyler,, CO -Il ot II;. Clud ErucklyirCr,lIr,-l:-0(P mCI? urn', 14ui- inpil CSfLnI7 Housing ticp3rinicniui C12-240-f,2LIu. A:inillc'y ,rhdrt icr pr.rrnra cccl, ditciu]jiis-s uccc o,'aIrhtIr: tacin in- qirul at lfrSrl hi 0cm' In urdorer, Fhiccica crnlad Win Cit 2151- IdI Clue ?a ruinS- nar.Jcuiuncic. lr'Jl!li, cOPa. P1114 2012 LIlian OfJhICunTtJIIL.iI? Attachment IV - Neighborhood Stabilization/Code Enforcement Request for Funding Non Public Service Application17T1 Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016LH Gen e ra[ Information: - City: Other partners (if any): CDBG funding request: Use of CDBG funding (e.g. acquisition of land, rehabilitation of pubfic facility, sidewalk reconstruction, etc): Brooklyn Center $150,000 N eighborthood Stabilization/Code Enforcement Contact person: Jesse Anderson Phone and Email: 763-569-3420 - Jandersoncci.bmokIyn-center.mn.us Activity Information: Describe the activity: Brooklyn center had the highest percentage of foreclosures of all cities in suburban Hennepin County from 2007 through 2010- Brooklyn Center continues to experience foreclosures and vacant properties. The number of vacant properties fluctuates, but is expected to continue for the next few years. The status of the property, ownership, responsible parties and numbers can change daily. o The majority oil vacarit properties in the city have one or more code violations, everything from health/life safety hazards to general nuisances. City resources and costs are being spent to deal with problems associated with vacant properties, often shifting resources from other programs areas. Early intervention with vacant properties helps to ensure minimum community standards, while increasing citizen satisfaction. The presence of vacant homes and foreclosures on a block is impacting the sale prices of open market transactions. • Long term vacant properties create potential for increased levels of vandalism and more serious criminal activity. Where will the activity he located? Throughout the City of Brooklyn Center excluding non-eligible neighborhoods What population(s) will benefit? All Non Public Service Application Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 Will this principally benefit low to moderate- Itwill benefit Lo to \:derate income Neighborhood Areas income persons! neighborhood areas, or directly benefit populations )resr1I1led to be low-income including seniors, abused children, battered spouses, homeless, disabled persons? Anticipated -accomplishments (numerical goal) Implementation Schedule - highest priority given to activites able to request reimbursement by April 1, 2017. Expenditure period is July 1 2016- June 30, 2017. 1005'. of Vacant Properties within Brooklyn Center will be inspected, Code Enforcement Sweep inspection will be conducted o'150% of the city. 1 Monthly Monitorying of Vacant Properties Onging Code Enforcement Sweep Inspection 15-Oct-16 Staffing and Financial Capacity: Describe city staff capacity and experience relevant to administering this activity: The current staffing levels include two Property Code Specialist and a I-lousing and Community Standards Supervisor that will spit time focusing on this program. The Deputy Director of Building and Community standards will be administring the program, including year end reporting and quartlerly reimbursement requestest. Will additional staffing/resources need to be secured? A'.v -ards must be spent by June 30, 2017, and applications score higher by being able to expend by April 1, 2017. When is the anticipated date to expend the funds? No additional staffing will be required It is anticipated that the funds will be expended by April 1, 2017 CDBG $150,000.00 Prior Year CDBG (for this activity)$150,000.00 Other federal funds (specify) - Non Public Service Application r Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 Low Income Housing Tax Credits - State (specify) Local (specify) Metropolitan Council otljfy) ________ Total $300,000.00 J-JL!13 I Staff Time for Code Enforcement i5UO00.0Q0 - Consi s tency with Plans - and Pubic Sup poi: is this a high, medium, or low priority service according to the 201.5-2019 Consolidated Plan? High Describe any community or private partnership support: Enhanced Community Image Our ability to attract and retain residents and businesses is influenced by the perception of the City. We will take specific actions to assure that Brooklyn Center is recognized by residents, businesses, stakeholders, and visitors as a high quality, attractive, and safe community. Describe how the activity meets a locally identified high priority community development This activity will continue to address the city Council Goal of Enhanced need: Community Image by improveing the residential neighborhoods. Attachment V -H.O.M.E. Program (Senior Community Services) Application Attachment VI -Meal on Wheels (CEAP) Application Attachment VII -Tenant Advocacy Program (HOME line) Application Attachment VIII -Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth) Application Attachment IV -Food and Nutrition Services (CAPT USA) Application Attachment X -Housing Counseling Services (Lao Assistance Center of MN) Application Attachment XI -Success Plan (Pro USA) Application X CITY © A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www.cityofbrooklynceflter.Org Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds SuppIemeb Appkn De Mmy, 20, 72016 by 30 PM Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: Senior Community Services Program Name:Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) Program Purpose: Our services help senior to remain independent in their homes in the community of Brooklyn Center. Seniors can utilize our homemaking, snow removal, lawn care, minor repair and painting services to maintain their home and make safety improvements to prevent falls. We mobilize community volunteers of all ages to not only help with these tasks but to connect with isolated seniors in their neighborhoods. ffli UI'! U!Ments1 1.Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status? less2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program? 4.Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? 5. Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply)Ho Employment services - -Ho Crime Prevention and public services o Health Services o Substance abuse services LI] o Housing Counseling D o Education programs o Energy Conservation o Services for senior citizens o Services for homeless persons Pagel of8 • ___ i!Ljj1J - W I___ PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1)Proposed program description. Be concise, yet thorough in describing the activity 20 of only the program for which funding is being sought, and in only as much detail as needed. CDBG funds cannot be used to replace current program funds. If this is an existing program and your organization did not receive Brooklyn Center CDBG funds last year, the funds must be used to expand the program or services. Our vision is to mobilize the community to Reimagine Aging. Our person- centered focus is on seniors age 60 and older. We work to help each Brooklyn Center senior to remain in their home and age in the place of their choice. We offer affordable, reliable, personalized services on a sliding fee scale. Our services include lawn care, snow removal, homemaking, interior and exterior painting and minor repair. We connect seniors to community through volunteer groups from local businesses, schools, community organizations and service groups to help deliver needed services to our senior clients. We offer Home Health and Safety Assessments to all of our senior clients at no cost. This valuable one-hour direct consultation results in an individualized list of recommendations to help keep seniors safe in their homes. Our team of handypersons works with clients to complete needed repairs and safety improvements. Our HOME program staff also serves an invaluable function as a referral resource for clients' needs outside of home maintenance. Our in-house staff of social workers can be called on to work directly with seniors who are struggling and connect them with needed resources. We have been serving the City of Brooklyn Center for 21 years. 2)Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. 20 Include information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and population to be served. Most seniors wish to remain independent and studies have shown that the cost of independence is substantially lower than the cost of nursing homes. According to Hennepin County's GAPS Analysis, home-based services - including homemaking home maintenance, and chore services - are deemed the most critical needs in order for frail elders to remain out of nursing homes. The goal of the HOME Program is to assist seniors, especially low- to moderate- income elderly, to remain in their homes, providing them with affordable services they can no longer do for themselves and preventing unnecessary nursing home placement. We anticipate serving 75 or more Brooklyn Center seniors age 60+. 3) Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services 10 for which you are requesting funding? State the entities and briefly describe why your program is unique in the service activity you are proposing to fund. Community Emergency Assistance Programs (CEAP) transferred administration Page 2 of 8 of the chore program for Brooklyn Center seniors to Senior Community Services in 2014. There are many other for profit providers that provide some parts of the comprehensive services that HOME provides, but these services are provided at market rate. The HOME program provides critical services to help seniors remain in their home on a sliding fee scale. We also use volunteers to provide spring and fall yard clean up free of charge to the client. There are often trust issues when it comes to a senior letting a stranger in their home to provide any service. The HOME program surveys its clients and the top three reasons that seniors chose the HOME program over other for profit providers is: 1. They cannot afford to pay the market rate. 2. They trust the HOME program's staff. 3. They are unable to do the work themselves. Participation in the Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) program assures access to additional resources and services that would benefit the older adult. Additional services are provided in a seamless manner, consistent with our Mission, as part of our comprehensive approach to helping older adults live independently in their own homes. Many frail elders utilize other Senior Community Services' services, such as care coordination, participation in physical fitness, educational, recreational and social activities outside their home through Senior Community Services' five senior center and community-based programs; or support for their family members through caregiver coaching and counseling. In addition, Senior Community Services has successfully established partnerships with over 255 other agencies, units of government, churches, school districts and local community programs to provide access to services such as respite, adult day services and home care, meals on wheels, transportation, etc., and ensures that Senior Community Services provides an integrated, non-duplicative service system for every elder, regardless of that person's entry point into Senior community Services. 4)Do you plan to provide this service to other cities or jurisdictions?10 5)If yes, will CDBG funds be used? NYes []No The CDBG funds are used to fund the sliding fee scale to provide services to low to moderate-income seniors. Currently, we receive CDBG funds from the following cities: Brooklyn Center $10,000 Bloomington $16,800 Eden Prairie $9,000 Edina $8,955 Richfield $21,741 Maple Grove $5,440 Minnetonka $5,500 New Hope $4,375 Plymouth $5,000 We also receive CDBG POOL Funding of $3,455 from Hennepin County to support the work of our Gillespie Senior Center. 6) Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor 20 the results. The HOME Program staff conducts an annual survey in December of program Page 3 of 8 participants to gain feedback on how well the service or experience meets their needs and to evaluate our program outcomes. The survey responses are compiled in January. Staff also review client records. This information is used to make continuous improvement in service delivery. The HOME Program also maintains a comprehensive Chore database that enable staff to analyze program effectiveness and make adjustments as needed. Regular site visits are conducted by funders. Frequent, regularly scheduled staff meetings provide continuous quality improvement by methods such as community resource updates and in- service education. The program director and coordinators utilize professional development plans that focus learning on mission, service, and best practices. 7)Please describe how your program meets one or more of the City's priorities 20 listed below. (Check all that apply) See attachment for more information about city priorities. Resident Economic Stability Targeted Redevelopment Enhanced Community Image Inclusive Community Engagement Strengthened and Empowered Youth [II]Key Infrastructure Investments Describe: Our services help low-income seniors afford the maintenance on their homes. We also work proactively to keep seniors safe in their homes by conducting safety assessments and making safety improvements. (Resident Economic Stability) We also believe the city's support of the area's elderly population through the work of the HOME program is a worthwhile component in the overall strategy of improving and preserving Brooklyn Center's housing stock. (Enhanced Community Image) We not only engage seniors in Brooklyn Center but also various community organizations to volunteer to serve seniors. Our efforts help to build community and offer social opportunities for isolated seniors and the volunteers that assist them. (Inclusive Community Engagement) 8)Please describe how this program is ready for implementation and what steps 20 would need to be taken before this program can be started. HOME was originally a program of South Hennepin Human Services which started in 1980, but was transferred to Senior Community Services in 1990. At that time, HOME served the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield and St. Louis Park. HOME expanded in 1992 to include the cities of Minnetonka and Brooklyn Center. In 1999, the Robbinsdale School District 281 Community Education approached Senior Community Services with the opportunity to merge their program with our program. In 2000, the merger went through and HOME expanded to the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, Plymouth and Robbinsdale. In 2003, HOME expanded once again, this time to the city of Hopkins. Due to the number of calls Page 4 of 8 from seniors living in the cities of Maple Grove and Wayzata for HOME. services, in 2011, HOME expanded to Maple Grove and Wayzata to meet the need. In 2014, Senior Community Services acquired CEAP's Chore program and expanded to serve Brooklyn Park and Osseo. We also expanded to 11 communities in the Westonka area in 2014. As of January 1, 2015, we have acquired Neighborhood Involvement Program's Chore program and new we serve the city of Minneapolis. HOME has a solid history of incremental expansion in Hennepin County to meet the growing needs and preferences for affordable homemaking, home maintenance and chore services. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 9)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you 10 have been able to meet the compliance requirements. (please provide a copy of previous annual and quarterly reports) 10)If you have been approved for federal/public funds previously, please state if you have an instance where you have not met the reimbursement requirements as a person or organization? We have 20+ years of experience administering federal funds. We administer federal funds (CDBG) in nine suburban Hennepin County cities. We also receive federal funding (Older Americans Act Funding Title III). Through our comprehensive Chore database, we are able to meet the compliance tracking requirements. Attached is a quarterly report, along with a 2015 year- end report. 11) If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and the accomplishments. Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications. During the calendar year 2015, we served 68 Brooklyn Center residents by providing over 1200 hours of direct service. Volunteers from schools, faith communities and local businesses accounted for 30 percent of the work done. The majority of our work was done to assist with outside maintenance of seniors' homes including yard work, mowing, painting and snow removal. Eighty-seven percent of our clients served in 2015 were Caucasian and 13 percent were African American. Seventy-nine percent were women and 65 percent lived alone. Over 80 percent were low and moderate-income persons. By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Page 5 of 8 Applicant's Signature: Title: CEO Date:1/13/16 Received bY)e4K- 1Zt?._ Date:I IS 2016 Time:jo : Page 6 of 8 CDBG Public Service Program Requirements City of BrooMyii Center Application Submittal Requirements Required Documents: 1.Completed and signed CDBG Supplemental Application 2.Copy of your Agency/Organization's 501(c)(3) letter 3. Completed Public Service Funding Application Submittal Requirements: o Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. o All applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked base on capacity, needs and funding priorities. • Preferred method of receiving the completed documents is a pdf sent by email to: J an dersonci.brooklyn-ceflter.mn .U5 or mail, or hand deliver it to: City of Brooklyn Center, Building and Community Standards Department, Attn: Jesse Anderson, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Due date is by 4:30 PM, January 20, 2016. CDBG Public Service Project Information Amount of FY2016 CDBG funds available: o Up to approximately $30,000 is available for social service organizations. Organizations typically are allocated between $7,500 and $15,000. A program receiving multi-city CDBG funding may be allocated an amount less than $7,500. The City may choose to not fund requesting public service agencies. Funding Priorities: • Program that support the city of Brooklyn Center Strategic Priorities • Programs supporting services to youth, diversity in the community, or that leverage community resources. In addition eligible activities include, but are not limited to those relating to; family self-sufficiency, counseling, domestic abuse, seniors, affordable housing, job readiness and training. Program Requirements: • Activities must benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD and listed on the chart below. o Organization must have a 501 (c)(3) status. o Income-eligible certification must be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51 % are from low- to moderate income households. Organization must have the staff capacity to administer the program and be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement. Page 7 of 8 Timeline and Program Dates: • January 20, 2016, by 4:30 PM, completed application due back to city hail. • February 8, 2016, 7:00 PM Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Meeting offers opportunity for short (3-5 minute) testimony from each applicant. After public hearing the Council members will make final decision for the allocation of CDBG funds. • July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017 - spend down timeline ofFY2Ol6 funds. No reimbursements can be made for program activities spent prior to HUD final approval, most likely on or shortly after July 1, 2016. Funds will be reimbursed after program activities have taken place, expenses have been paid, and required documentation has been submitted. • June 30, 2017 Final Reimbursement • January 1, 2017 - At least one reimbursement request must be submitted. Page 8 of 8 Pubflc Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDI3G Program Year 2016 Please answer below in this column General Information: Organization: Senior Community Services Type of entity: Non-profit CDBG funding request: $10,000 Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor Fund the Sliding Fee Scale Contact person: Deb Taylor Phone/Email: 952-767-7897/d.taylor@seniorcommunity.org Program Information: at is the program name/type of Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) Chore Service, service? a program of Senior Community Services Is this an existing CDBGfunded program? Yes Where is the program located, if applicable? Administrative Office is located in Minnetonka What is the service area of this Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Deephaven, program? Eden Prairie, Edina, Excelsior, Golden Valley, Greenwood, Hopkins, Long Lake, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, New Hope, Orono, Osseo, Plymouth, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Shorewood, Spring Park, St. Louis Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, and Woodland. Who is the target clientle? Services are provided to Brooklyn Center residents, age 60+, on a sliding fee basis. What needs does this program The HOME program assists older adults to maintain their dignity and ress? live independently by providing accessible, reliable, and affordable homemaker, home maintenance, lawn mowing, snow removal, yardwork and painting. Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services)h Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 Please answer below in this column General Information: Organization: Senior Community Services Type of entity: Non-profit CDBG funding request: $10000 Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor Fund the Sliding Fee Scale Contact person: Deb Taylor Phone/Email: 952-767-7897/d.taylor@seniorcommunity.or g information: What is the program name/type of Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) Chore Service, service? a program of Senior Community Services Is this an existing CDBG-funded program? Yes Where is the program located, if applicable? Administrative Office is located in Minnetonka What is the service area of this Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Deephaven, program? Eden Prairie, Edina, Excelsior, Golden Valley, Greenwood, Hopkins, Long Lake, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, New Hope, Orono, Osseo, Plymouth, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Shorewood, Spring Park, St. Louis Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, and Woodland. Who is the target clientle? Services are provided to Brooklyn Center residents, age 60+, on a sliding fee basis. What needs does this program The HOME program assists older adults to maintain their dignity and address? live independently by providing accessible, reliable, and affordable homemaker, home maintenance, lawn mowing, snow removal, yardwork and painting. Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services)h Urban Hennepin County CDG Program Year 2016 Is the need growing? Yes. According to the former MN State Demographer, Tom Gillaspy, by the year 2020, there will be more people over the age of 65 than school age children. Suburban Hennepin County has more people over the age of 60 than Dakota and Ramsey Counities combined (2010 Census Data). A host of studies show that seniors prefer to stay in their own homes and in their local nieghborhoods. How does the program address these needs? The HOME program helps seniors remain in their homes in dignity and safety by providing reliable and affordable homemaking, grab bars & other safety installations, safety assessments, minor repairs, exterior home maintenance, interior and exterior painting, yard work, lawn mowing, and snow removal on a sliding fee scale based on income. How many persons were served by this program in the last 12 months? 68 What is your goal for number of persons served July 2016 -June 2017? 75 or more What percentage of clients are (or are estimated to be) low and moderate- 80% Staffing and Financial Capacity: Pubflc Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDI3G Program Year 2016 Describe the organization's profit 501(c)(3) organization with the driving passion to enhance the experience in providing this service, quality of life of older adults and caregivers in Minnesota. The HOME staff capacity and staff qualifications: program was originally a program of South Hennepin Human Services which started in 1980, but was transferred to Senior Community Services in 1990. Jon Burkhow is the Director of the HOME program. He has been working in the field of aging since 2001. He currently overseas all aspects of the HOME program and is focused on expanding HOME's service offerings. Jon graduated from Gustavus Adolphus College with a BA in Asian Studies. Jeanne Tramel Rasmussen has over 11 years of expertise withvolunteer management. She has worked for over 15 years in a variety of nonprofit organizations and has a Master of Education from the University of Minnesota. Jeanne is the Outreach & Volunteer Coordinator for the HOME program. Valerie Anderson has been working in the non-profit field for over 14 years and has her AA in business management. She has been responsible for recruiting, training and overall direction of employees and volunteers that perform services for seniors. Valerie is currently a coordinator of the HOME program where she assesses, and assigns homemakers for seniors. Marcy Markovich was promoted from Assistant to the Crow River Senior Center Director to the HOME program coordinator in 2015. She works with independent contractors for mow & snow, handy persons and painters and coordinates the workers with seniors who need these services. Beth Hambel brings over 25 years of diverse experience in corporate management to the HOME Program. She is the point of first contact for potential new clients and helps all Awards must be spent by June 30, 2017, and it is requested that funds be spent by April 1, 2017. When is the anticipated date to expend the funds? By April 1, 2017 CDBG $89,011.00 Other federal $160,000.00 State funding $245,000.00 Local funding $27,715.00 Corporate contributions $10,000.00 Foundation contributions $10,000.00 Other (specify)$47,500.00 Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDG Program Year 2016 Other (specify) I $ 297,000.00 Consistency with Pans and P ublic Support: Is this a high, medium, or low priority service according to the 20152019 Consolidated Plan? *Applications will High Priority - Senior Services Participation in the HOME program assures access to additional resources and services that benefit the older adult. Additional services are provided in a seamless manner, consistent with our mission, as part of our comprehensive approach to helping older adults live independently in their own homes. Many frail elders utilize other Senior Community Services services, such as care coordination, participation in physical fitness, educational, recreational and social activities outside their home through Senior Community Services five senior center and community-based programs; or support for their family members through caregiver coaching and counseling. In addition, Senior Community Services has successfully established partnerships with over 255 other agencies, units of government, churches, school districts and local community programs to provide access to services such as respite, adult day services and home care, meals on wheels and transportation. This ensures that Senior Community Services provides an integrated, non-duplicative service system for every elder, regardless of that person's entry point into Senior Community Services. Describe any multi-community, multi agency or public/private partnership support: Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDIBG Program Year 2016 ( There are many other for profit providers that provide some parts of the comprehensive services that HOME provides, but these services are provided at market rate. The HOME program provides critical services to help seniors remain in their home on a sliding fee scale. We also use volunteers to provide spring and fall yard clean up and other services free of charge to the client. There are often trust issues when it comes to a senior letting a stranger in their home to provide any service. The HOME program surveys its clients each year and in 2015 the top three reasons that seniors chose the HOME program over other for profit providers is: 1. They trust the HOME program's staff. 2. They are unable to do the work themselves. 3. They cannot afford to pay the market rate. To measure our impact, we asked clients to what extent our services helped them to continue to live in their homes. Eighty-four percent reported that it helped very much, 15 % that it helped somewhat andl% that it did not help. We are pleased that the vast majority of our clients are satisfied with our service and recognize the impact our services have on their ability to remain independent in their homes. Describe how the activity meets a need not currently or adequately being addressed by other services: F_ Hennepin County CDBG Program Client Benefit Reporting Form Agency Name: Senior Community Services Program Name: Household and Outside Maintenance for the Elderly Brooklyn Center Reporting Period: 7/1/2015 thru 12/31/2015 2015 4th Quarter Income Categories All Individuals Served this Reporting Period Year-to-Date For office use only 0-30% Extremely Low 20 31-50% Low'28 51-80% Moderate'4 Subtotal 52 Greater Than 8O%6 UNKNOWN********** Totals 58 Race/Ethnicity Categories # Non-Hispanic # Hispanic # Non-Hispanic # Hispanic 11-White 51 12-Black/African American 7 13-Asian 14-American Indian 15-Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 16-American Indian/Alaskan Native & White 17-Asian & White 18-Black/African American & White 19-American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American 20- Other/Multi-racial _________________ Totals 58 Female Head of Household F 42 Describe accomplishments during this report period (attach additional pages as need): 10/l/2015-12/31/2015 In the fourth quarter of 2015, 396.5 hours of services wer were provided to 46 Brooklyn Park seniors residing in 38 homes. HOME provided:, Lawn Care 59 jobs 114.75 Hours Seasonal Outdoor 27 jobs 240 Hours Minor Repair 7 jobs 20.5 hours Cleaning 2 jobs 4.25 Hours Snow Removal 13 jobs 13 Hours Painting 1 job 4 Hours Total 109 jobs 396.5 Hours ?on cBurk flow See sheet I from summary Information provided by: Ri irkhnw (Date) 1/812016 Hennepin County CDBG Program Client Benefit Reporting Form Agency Name: Senior Community Services Program Name: Household and Outside Maintenance for the Elderly Brooklyn Center Reporting Period: 7/1/2014 thru 6/30/2015 CDBG Annual Report Income Categories All Individuals Served this Reporting Period Year-to-Date For office use only 0-30% "Extremely Low"23 31-50% "Low"32 51-80% 'Moderate"7 Subtotal 62 Greater Than 80%17 UNKNOWN********** Totals 79 Race/Ethnicity Categories # Non-Hispanic # Hispanic # Non-Hispanic # Hispanic 11-White 70 12-Black/African American 9 13-Asian 14-American Indian 15-Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 16-American Indian/Alaskan Native & White 17-Asian & White 18-Black/African American & White 19-American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American 20- Other/Multi-racial Totals 79 Female Head of Household 54 Describe accomplishments during this report period (attach additional pages as need): 4/1/2015-6/30/2015 In the second quarter of 2015, 303 hours of services wer were provided to 36 Brookly Park seniors residing in 30 homes. HOME provided:, Lawn Care 77 jobs 180.50 Hours Seasonal Outdoor 22 jobs 105 Hours Minor Repair 3 jobs 3.50 Hours Cleaning 2 jobs 6 Hours Snow Removal 0 jobs 0 Hours Painting 1 job 8 Hours See sheet I from summary Information provided by: Total 105 jobs 303 Hours Jon Burkhow Jon cBurfiow (Date) 7/1012015 (i IRS Department of the TreasuryInternal Revenue Service CINCINNATI OH 45999-0038 In reply refer to: 0248562365 Mar. 19, 2008 LTR 4168C ED 41-0720473 000000 00 000 00015663 BODC: TE SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 WAYZATA BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55305-5509995 Employer Identification Number: 41-0720473 Person to Contact: Robert C. Voss Toll Free Telephone Number: 1-877-829-5500 Dear Taxpayer: This is in response to. your request of Mar. 12, 2008, regarding your , tax—exempt status. Our records indicate that a determination letter was issued in May 1965, that recognized you as exempt from Federal income tax, and discloses that you are currently exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records also indicate you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because You are described in section(s) 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(Vi). Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. If you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. Sincerely yours, Michele M. Sullivan, Oper. Mgr. Accounts Management Operations I 3118 I CITY OFBROM LILL A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) - Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds Suppement Appkaton Due MolldaV, JanuarV 20, 2016 by 4:30 PM Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: Community Emergency Assistance Programs (CEAP) Program Name: Meals on Wheels Purpose: Provide meal home delivery to seniors and adults with disabilities. rIftfflfi Lp 0 10)(1101 iu illir iiFv iiiiTI1 ) iO'O p o T1 _____ 1.Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status? 2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program? 4.Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? 5. Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply) • Employment services • Crime Prevention and public services o Health Services El El • Substance abuse services o Housing Counseling El El o Education programs • Energy Conservation • Services for senior citizens Services for homeless persons Page 1 of PROGRAM PROPOSAL Proposed program description. Be concise, yet thorough in describing the activity of only the program for which funding is being sought, and in only as much detail as needed. ]20] CDBG funds cannot be used to replace current program funds. If this is an existing program and your organization did not receive Brooklyn Center CDBG funds last year, the funds must be used to expand the program or services. CEAP's Meals on Wheels delivers nutritious meals to seniors and adults with disabilities who are not able to provide hot meals for themselves. Meals On Wheels is a vital program in our community. Meals On Wheels is unique in that it also provides daily contact with a caring individual in the community and that vital "check in" and follow up if needed. 2)Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. 20 Include information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and population to be served. Seniors will have access to a nutritious meal who may otherwise not be able to prepare on their own which allows seniors to stay in their home. Volunteers deliver the meals so a community connection is made as well during the daily "check-in" for wellness and safety. Over 100 seniors in Brooklyn Center receive meals each day Monday through Friday with the ability to receive weekend meals through trusted, reliable volunteers from our community. 3)Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services 10 for which you are requesting funding? State the entities and briefly describe why your program is unique in the service activity you are proposing to fund. No. 4)Do you plan to provide this service to other cities or jurisdictions? 10 Yes []NO 5)If yes, will CDBG funds be used? CEAP's Meals on Wheels delivers meals in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and parts of Minneapolis. Requested funds will cover the staff labor costs to manage the entire program with the majority of the clients in Brooklyn Center. 6)Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor 20 the results. CEAP tracks information of meal delivery and client information daily. This data is reviewed monthly by our staff, every other month by our Board of Directors and is evaluated to ensure we are meeting our goals and objectives. We also report our results to Metro Meals ON Wheels, Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging and Hennepin County. Client satisfaction surveys are conducted twice annually. 7)Please describe how your program meets oneor more of the City's priorities 20 listed below. (Check all that apply) See attachment for more information about Page 2 of 6 city priorities. Resident Economic Stability Targeted Redevelopment LI Enhanced Community Image Inclusive Community Engagement Strengthened and Empowered Youth LI Key Infrastructure Investments LI Describe: Enabling seniors to stay in their homes by providing a nutritious meal through CEAP's Meals on Wheels program helps Brooklyn Center's community image and vibrant neighborhoods. Brooklyn Center's support for CEAP's Meals on Wheels shows Brooklyn Center takes care of its residents and provides a sense of community as CEAP's Meals on Wheels offers that daily check-in for seniors living alone. 8)Please describe how this program is ready for implementation and what steps 20 would need to be taken before this program can be started. CEAP has been successfully operating Meals on Wheels for over 40 years in Brooklyn Center and continues to grow and serve more people. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 9)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you 10 have been able to meet the compliance requirements. (please provide a copy of previous annual and quarterly reports) 10) If you have been approved for federal/public funds previously, please state if you have an instance where you have not met the reimbursement requirements as a person or organization? CEAP has been administering public funds including CDBG funds for numerous years and have been compliant. I l)If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and the accomplishments. Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications. Previously funded CDBG programs for CEAP include CEAP's Meals on Wheels. Funds were used for program coordination, volunteer recruitment and an expanded selection of culturally appropriate meals. By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. Page 3 of 6 I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I rinderstand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Applicants Signature: Title te: /f Received by:943K. Date:I I q I Time: 1 -f Page 4 of 6 CDBG Public Service Program Requirements City of Brooldyn Center Application Submittal Requirements Required Documents: 1.Completed and signed CDBG Supplemental Application 2.Copy of your Agency/Organization's 501(c)(3) letter 3. Completed Public Service Funding Application Submittal Requirements: o Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. o All applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked base on capacity, needs and funding priorities. o Preferred method of receiving the completed documents is a pdf sent by email to: Jandersonci.brooldyn-center.rnn.us or mail, or hand deliver it to: City of Brooklyn Center, Building and Community Standards Department, Attn: Jesse Anderson, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Due date is by 4:30 PM, January 20, 2016. CDBG Public Service Pjjct Information Amount of FY2016 CDBG funds available: Up to approximately $30,000 is available for social service organizations. Organizations typically are allocated between $7,500 and $15,000. A program receiving multi-city CDBG funding may be allocated an amount less than $7,500. The City may choose to not fund requesting public service agencies. Funding Priorities: o Program that support the city of Brooklyn Center Strategic Priorities o Programs supporting services to youth, diversity in the community, or that leverage community resources. o In addition eligible activities include, but are not limited to those relating to; family self-sufficiency, counseling, domestic abuse, seniors, affordable housing, job readiness and training. Program Requirements: • Activities must benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD and listed on the chart below. • Organization must have a 501 (c)(3) status. • Income-eligible certification must be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51% are from low- to moderate income households. o Organization must have the staff capacity to administer the program and be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement. Page 5 of 6 Timeline and Program Dates: • January 20, 2016, by 4:30 PM, completed application due back to city hail. • February 8,2016,7:00 PM Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Meeting offers opportunity for short (3-5 minute) testimony from each applicant. After public hearing the Council members will make final decision for the allocation of CDBG funds. • July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017 - spend down timeline ofFY2Ol6 funds. No reimbursements can be made for program activities spent prior to HUD final approval, most likely on or shortly after July 1, 2016. Funds will be reimbursed after program activities have taken place, expenses have been paid, and required documentation has been submitted. • June 30, 2017 Final Reimbursement • January 1, 2017 - At least one reimbursement request must be submitted. Page 6 of 6 Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services)H Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 Please answer below in this column General Information: Organization: Community Emergency Assistance Programs Type of entity: Non-profit CDBtS funding request: $ 15,000.00 Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor costs): Staff Labor Costs Contact person: Jill Pettit Phone/Email: 763-450-3664 / lill.pettit@ceap.com Program Information: What is the program name/type of service? CEAP's Meals on Wheels delivers nutritious meals to seniors and adults with disabilities who are not able to provide hot meals for themselves. Meals On Wheels is a vital program in our community. Over 120 (over 30,000 annually) hot meals are distributed each day Monday through Friday through trusted, reliable volunteers from our community. Meals On Wheels is unique in that it also provides daily contact with a caring individual in the community and that vital "check in" and follow up if needed. Is this an existing CDBG-funded program? Yes. Where is the program located, if applicable? CEAP's Meals on Wheels is located in Brooklyn Center. What is the service area of this program? CEAP's Meals on Wheels serves all of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and the Camden neighborhood of North Minneapolis. Who is the target clientle? CEAP's Meals on Wheels serves seniors and adults with disabilities. 30% are black or African American, 3% Asian and 3% Hispanic. CEAP delivers over 120 meals a day, Monday-Friday totaling over 30,000 meals annually. What needs does this program address? CEAP's Meal on Wheels provides the ability for seniors and adults with disabilities to stay in their home by providing a nutritious meal delivered to their door. It also provides a daily check-in and valuable community connection for those that may not otherwise be able to get out of their home. lathe need growing? Yes, as our community continues to age, CEAP's Meals on Wheels program continues to expand in Brooklyn Center. The reduction in funds available through the federal government because of the 2013 budget sequester has decreased our ability to provide subsidized meals for seniors. Many low-income seniors that were receiving subsidized meals may no longer afford CEAP's Meals on Wheels. Support is needed to continue to serve this growing population. How does the program address these needs? CEAP's Meals on Wheels continues to expand and take new clients and also provide culturally appropriate food as our community grows and becomes more diverse. As the cost of food increases, the need for CDBG funds is necessary for this program to grow and serve the community. Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services)rkpl- Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 How many persons were served by this program in the last 12 months? 240 What is your goal for number of persons served July 2016- June 2017? 254 What percentage of clients are (or are estimated to he) low and moderate-income persons? CDBG requires at least 51%. 63% Staffing and Financial Capacity: Describe the organization's experience in providing this service, staff capacity and staff qualifications: CEAP's has been a social services agency serving Brooklyn Center since 1971 and operating Meals on Wheels since 1973. CEAP's Meals on Wheels coordinator has successfully performed the position for over 10 years. Awards must be spent by June 30, 2017, and it is requested that funds be spent by April 1, 2017. When Is the anticipated date to expend the funds? - - CDBG Other federal State funding Local funding Corporate contributions Foundation contributions Other (specify) Other (specify) Consistency with Plans and Public Support: April 1, 2017 Amount $15,000 $14,485 $ $5,000 (individuals and events) $ $ $80,000 -- high, medium, or low priority service according to the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan? *Applications will be reviewed and ranked based on the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan high priorities. High CEAP's Meals on Wheels is supported by the community as the meals are Describe any multi-community, multi-agency or public/private partnership support: delivered by volunteers. Describe how the activity meets a need not currently or adequately being addressed by other services: No other program delivers meals to seniors to their homes in Brooklyn Center. Internal Revenue Service Date: March 15, 2007 COMMUNITY EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM INC 6840 78TH AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55445-2760 408 Department of the Treasury P. 0. Box 2508 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Person to Contact: Ms. Julius 3108345 Customer Service Representative Toll Free Telephone Number: 877-829-5500 Federal Identification Number: 41-0990340 Dear Sir or Madam: This is in response to your request of March 15, 2007, regarding your organization's tax- exempt status. In March 1972 we issued a determination letter that recognized your organization as exempt from federal income tax. Our records indicate that your organization is currently exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records indicate that your organization is also classified as a public charity under sections 509(a)(1) and I 70(b)(1 )(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records indicate that contributions to your organization are deductible under section 170 of the Code, and that you are qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Internal Revenue Code. If you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. Sincerely, Michele M. Sullivan, Oper, Mgr. Accounts Management Operations I I CITY OF ____BR© c a A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds Suppllernell Apkon Due: Mnday, AnuarV 20, 2016 by 4:30 PM Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: HOME Line Program Name: Tenant Hotline Services Purpose: HOME Line will provide a tenant hotline that provides free legal advice to tenants about landlord/tenant law. These services prevent problems ranging from homelessness to illness from unsafe living conditions, and result in reducing the use of the city's emergency resources. YcjsNo pjio wn, al ,m 1.Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status?Ll 1 2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program? 4.Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? 5. Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply) o Employment services • Crime Prevention and public services • Health Services • Substance abuse services o Housing Counseling o Education programs • Energy Conservation El El • Services for senior citizens • Services for homeless persons Pagel of 7 PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1)Proposed program description. Be concise, yet thorough in describing the activity 20 of only the program for which funding is being sought, and in only as much detail as needed. CDBG funds camot be used to replace current program funds. If this is an existing program and your organization did not receive Brooklyn Center CDBG funds last year, the funds must be used to expand the program or services. Renters make up nearly 4,115 households in Brooklyn Center, and many of these families have low incomes. When renters have problems involving their homes, those who don't know their rights and responsibilities can end up living in housing that is unsafe, lose security deposits that are rightfully theirs, or make decisions that cost them their home. HOME Line provides renters with the tools necessary to keep their homes safe and affordable. HOME Line's Tenant Hotline provides free legal advice to tenants about landlord/tenant law. These services prevent problems ranging from homelessness to illness from unsafe living conditions, and result in reducing the use of the city's emergency resources. The Tenant Hotline Services began in 1992 as a service to Suburban Hennepin County residents. Today we serve the entire state and have recently taken our 190,000th call. Five full time and one part time staff attorneys, along with two Spanish and one Somali Speaking Tenant advocates, work full time on the hotline along with 50-75 law student volunteers each year. 2)Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. 20 Include information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and population to be served. Renters make up nearly 4,115 households in Brooklyn Center, and many of these families have low incomes. When renters have problems involving their homes, those who don't know their rights and responsibilities can end up living in housing that is unsafe, lose security deposits that are rightfully theirs, or make decisions that cost them their home. HOME Line provides renters with the tools necessary to keep their homes safe and affordable. HOME Line's Tenant Hotline provides free legal advice to tenants about landlord/tenant law. These services prevent problems ranging from homelessness to illness from unsafe living conditions, and result in reducing the use of the city's emergency resources. The Tenant Hotline Services began in 1992 as a service to Suburban Hennepin County residents. Today we serve the entire state and have recently taken our 190,000th call. Five full time and one part time staff attorneys work full time on the hotline along with 50-75 law student volunteers each year. Page 2 of 7 Our Tenant Hotline Services to Brooklyn Center have helped save tenants at least $20,322 in 2015. We also helped to prevent the eviction of 16 Brooklyn Center families. Last year, we advised 173 renter households from Brooklyn Center. The most common reasons Brooklyn Center residents call our hotline are: repairs, evictions, and security deposits. The need for this service in Brooklyn Center is apparent -- Brooklyn Center residents already rely on this valuable service. By offering free tenant hotline services, HOME Line has been providing needed services for those most vulnerable. While our services are available to all renters free of charge, 97% of our Brooklyn Center callers have low incomes; (82%) of these callers are women; 70% are racial minorities. Our programs are aimed at low-income renters. We identify the key demographics at the beginning of each call. Additionally, in 2015, HOME Line added an additional Spanish speaking tenant advocate. HOME Line now has one Somali and two Spanish Language Tenant Advocates to assist immigrant renters +i. 3)Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services 10 for which you are requesting funding? State the entities and briefly describe why your program is unique in the service activity you are proposing to fund. The only other organizations providing similar services for tenants in Brooklyn Park are the Minnesota Attorney Generals office and Legal Aid. The AG's office refers tenants with questions to our hotline, but does not give tenants specific advice. We often confer with colleagues at Legal Aid on litigation and court issues and on legislative matters. However, our hotline, while providing a service similar to that of Legal Aid, does not have the extremely low income requirements of Legal Aid. We are able to serve the working poor. We will also advise renters on any issue that renters face as part of their rental agreement 4)Do you plan to provide this service to other cities or jurisdictions?10 5)If yes, will CDBG funds be used? EYes No Yes, In multiple cities CDBG and other city funds are utilized to pay for HOME Line's services 6)Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor 20 the results. HOME Line records and documents all calls to our tenant hotline. We maintain these records in a database. In addition to basic demographic information, HOME Line record types of calls and follow up information and results when obtained. HOME Line analyzes the overall information to monitor trends and challenges facing families in rental housing, as well our overall impact in each community. HOME Line does and will continue to provide reports to the city of Brooklyn Center. 7) Please describe how your program meets one or more of the City's priorities 20 listed below. (Check all that apply) See attachment for more information about city priorities. Page 3 0f7 Resident Economic Stability LITargeted Redevelopment Enhanced Community Image Inclusive Community Engagement Strengthened and Empowered Youth Key Infrastructure Investments LI Describe: When renters have problems involving their homes, those who don't know their rights and responsibilities can end up living in housing that is unsafe, lose security deposits that are rightfully theirs, or make decisions that cost them their home. HOME Line provides renters with the tools necessary to keep their homes safe and affordable. Renter families become civicly engaged in resolving their rental issues, giving their families more financial stability and contributing to the health and safety, as well as the good repair of their rental housing. Engaged tenants, involved in their communities and proactively dealing with tenant issues, increase their families financial stability, and improve the quality of housing, helping to create Vibrant Neighborhoods. 8)Please describe how this program is ready for implementation and what steps 20 would need to be taken before this program can be started._______ Program is ongoing, Spanish and Somali outreach started in September 2014, expanded in 2015, and will develop more as we learn how better to work with these populations. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE ____ 9)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you 10 have been able to meet the compliance requirements. (please provide a copy of previous annual and quarterly reports) HOME Line throughout its history has had a wide variety of local, state, and Federal programs that provide funding for our services. This includes city, CDBO, County, State and Federal funding. HOME Line has always complied with the various requirements of all of these programs. 10)If you have been approved for federal/public funds previously, please state if you have an instance where you have not met the reimbursement requirements as a person or organization? nla 11)If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and the accomplishments. Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications. In 2015, 173 Brooklyn Center renter households contacted HOME Line for Tenant Hotline Services. This represents service to approximately 433 residents when all family members have been counted. Page 4 of 7 In 2015, HOME Line helped renters from Brooklyn Center: ° Recover and/or save an estimated $20,322. o Prevent an estimated 16 evictions. o Renters with repair issues who follow our advice are 37% more likely to get their problem fixed than those who don't. INCOME BREAKDOWN The vast majority (97%) of these callers are extremely-low, very-low or low-income. These income categories are those used by the U. S. Department of H.U.D.: o 62% Extremely Low: Incomes below 30% of metro median. o 21% Very Low: Incomes between 30% and 50% of metro median • 13% Low: Incomes between 50% and 80% of metro median. • 4% Moderate: Incomes above 80% of metro median. RACIAL BREAKDOWN 62%African American 30%Caucasian 4%Hispanic 3%Other 1%Asian GENDER BREAKDOWN 82% Female 18% Mal By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. xid 24!A47 Applicant's Signature: Title: Executive Director Date: 1/15/2016 Received by t4Z4 Date: I 1 I Time: ' 2 A 14 Page 5 of 7 CDBG Public Service Program Requirements City of Brooldyn Center Application Submittal Requirements Required Documents: 1.Completed and signed CDBG Supplemental Application 2.Copy of your Agency/Organization's 501(c)(3) letter 3. Completed Public Service Funding Application Submittal Requirements: o Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. o All applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked base on capacity, needs and funding priorities. o Preferred method of receiving the completed documents is a pdf sent by email to: Jandersonci.brooklyn-center.mii.us or mail, or hand deliver it to: City of Brooklyn Center, Building and Community Standards Department, Attn: Jesse Anderson, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Due date is by 4:30 PM, January 20, 2016. CDBG Public Service Project Information Amount of FY2016 CDBG funds available: • Up to approximately $30,000 is available for social service organizations. Organizations typically are allocated between $7,500 and $15,000. A program receiving multi-city CDBG funding may be allocated an amount less than $7,500. The City may choose to not fund requesting public service agencies. Funding Priorities: o Program that support the city of Brooklyn Center Strategic Priorities o Programs supporting services to youth, diversity in the community, or that leverage community resources. In addition eligible activities include, but are not limited to those relating to; family self-sufficiency, counseling, domestic abuse, seniors, affordable housing, job readiness and training. Program Requirements: Activities must benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD and listed on the chart below. Organization must have a 501 (c)(3) status. Income-eligible certification must be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51% are from low- to moderate income households. Organization must have the staff capacity to administer the program and be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement. Page 6 of 7 Timeline and Program Dates: • January 20, 2016, by 4:30 PM, completed application due back to city hall. • February 8, 2016, 7:00 PM Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Meeting offers opportunity for short (3-5 minute) testimony from each applicant. After public hearing the Council members will make final decision for the allocation of CDBG funds. • July 1, 2016 th.ru June 30, 2017 - spend down timeline ofFY2Ol6 funds. No reimbursements can be made for program activities spent prior to HUD final approval, most likely on or shortly after July 1, 2016. Funds will be reimbursed after program activities have taken place, expenses have been paid, and required documentation has been submitted. • June 30, 2017 Final Reimbursement • January 1, 2017 - At least one reimbursement request must be submitted. Page 7 of 7 Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 Please answer below in this column General Information: Organization: Type of entity: CDBG funding request: Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor costs) Contact person: Phone/Email: HOME Line Non-profit $8,122 Staff Labor Costs Mike Vraa Managing Attorney/Hotline Director 612 728-5770 x113 mikevhomelinemn.org Program Information: What is the program name/type of service? Is this an existing CDBG-funded program? Where is the program located, if applicable? What is the service area of this program? Who is the target clientle? Tenant Hotline Services Yes Phone service City wide Low Income Renters What needs does this program address?Renters make up nearly 4,115 households in Brooklyn Center, and many of these families have low incomes. When renters have problems involving their homes, those who don't know their rights and responsibilities can end up living in housing that is unsafe, lose security deposits that are rightfully theirs, or make decisions that cost them their home. HOME Line provides renters with the tools necessary to keep their homes safe and affordable. Additionally, the latest census information shows that Brooklyn Center now has 2,531 Spanish speaking residents. Brooklyn Center also has 3,223 African born immigrants from Subsaharan Africa. These immigrant communities are more likely to be renters, low-income, and because of language and cultural barriers, more susceptible to poor rental practices. Is the need growing? Yes, 3% increase in calls over last year How does the program address these needs?HOME Line provides renters with the tools necessary to keep their homes safe and affordable. HOME Line's Tenant Hotline provides free legal advice to tenants about landlord/tenant law. These services prevent problems ranging from homelessness to illness from unsafe living conditions, and result in reducing the use of the city's emergency resources. In 2014, our Tenant Hotline Services to Brooklyn Center advised 173 renter households, helped prevent the eviction of 16 families, and saved tenants at least $20,322. The most common reasons Brooklyn Center residents call our hotline are: repairs, evictions, and security deposits. The need for this service in Brooklyn Center is apparent -- Brooklyn Center residents already rely on this valuable service. While our services are available to all renters free of charge, 97% of our Brooklyn Center callers have low incomes; 82% of these callers are women; 70% are racial minorities. Our programs are aimed at low-income renters. HOME Line's language and cultural access initiative means that Somali and Spanish speaking renters can directly call our Somali and Spanish speaking Tenant advocates in their native languages and get assistance with their rental problems. How many persons were served by this program in the last 12 months? 432 What is your goal for number of persons served July 2015 - June 2016? 500-550 What percentage of clients are (or are estimated to be) low and moderate-income persons? CDBG requires at least 51%. 97% Staffing and Financial Capacity: Describe the organization's experience in providing this service, staff capacity and staff qualifications: The Tenant Hotline began in 1992 as a service to Suburban Hennepin County residents. Today we serve the Awards must be spent by Julie 30, 2017, and it is requested that funds be spent by April 1, 2017. When is the anticipated date to expend the funds? April 1, 2017 Funding Sources - Amount $88,436CDBG 'Other federal 01 State funding 100,000 [iical funding 139,787 Corporate contributions 0 [Foundation contributions $143,7171 Other (Hotline Training, Attorneys Fees, Books Sale $53,100 jpther(Funders to be developed, new earned incor 103,411 Consistency with Plans and Public Support: Is this a high, medium, or low priority service according to the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan? *Applications will High - Public Service - Housing Counseling Describe any multi-community, multi-agency or public/private partnership support: HOME Line has a history of successfully partnering with foundations and local and state governments to help Describe how the activity meets a need not currently or adequately being addressed by other services: The Attorney General's office refers tenants with questions to our hotline, but does not give tenants specific INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE P. o. iox 2508 r-111CIZINATI, Cfl 45201 Date I FEB 1, 2 2004 3455 BLOVMINGTON AVE MIUNRhPOIjIS, MN 5507-0000 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREURY Eplcyer IdentLfiCat101 uunber: 4J-19 1 12115 DLN: 17fl300370084Con.aCt 1eriOn ERIC JThRTESEfl 1323 Contact Telephone L: (77) 82-5500 Public Charity S tatus:170(b) (1) (A) (vi) Dear ippl1caflt.: Our letter dated NoveliThCr 199 tatd you would be exempt frcm Federal InCOnC tax under setiofl H01 (c) (3) of the Internal ReveMle Code, and you would be treated ao a public charity during an advance ruling piriocL on our records and on the jnormatiOfl you Oubmittedp we are plcacd toBasedconfirm that you are exempt under section 501(c) (3) of the Code and you are clasoifled as a public charity under the Code sectioll listed in the heading of this letter. Publication 5 57, TuE%emPt Status for your provides detailed inrrnatiO about your rights and re onibiliti aa all exenipt organLat101t. You may request a copy by call the tol1f roe number for ortns1 (800) 829-3673 InfoThatiO1 i also available on our Internet Web Site at •.atw. i5 . gov. about exempt orgar.iati0fl5 please call ourit you have general question heading between 00 a.rn. - G30 u.si. Easterul toll-free nunber shown in the tittie. Pleue keep this letter in your pernianent records- jrC1y yours, ? Lois G.rernr Director, E:ernpt organi:atiOfl5 Rulii115 and Agrcemento Letter 1050 (DO/CGI HOME Line's Tenant Hotline in Brooklyn Center: 2015 OVERVIEW In 2015, 173 Brooklyn Center renter households contacted HOME Line for Tenant Hotline Services. This represents service to approximately 433 residents when all family members have been counted. The cost to serve Brooklyn Center in 2016 is $8,122. HIGHLIGHTS INCOME BREAKDOWN Top Ten Reasons For Calls 1.Repairs 32 2.Eviction 26 3.Security Deposit 23 4.Notice to Vacate 21 5.Break Lease 12 6.Privacy/Intrusion 10 7.Fees 8 8.Infestation/Bed Bugs 7 9.Application 4 10.Lock Out 4 In 2015, HOME Line helped renters from Brooklyn Center: Recover and/or save an estimated $20,322. e Prevent an estimated 16 evictions. • Renters with repair issues who follow our advice are 37% more likely to get their problem fixed than those who don't. RACIAL BREAKDOWN 62%African American 30%Caucasian 4%Hispanic 3%Other 2%Asian GENDER BREAKDOWN 82% Female 18% Male I CITY OFBROO(L A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY 4 f www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds SppIernentaI Appktion [: Monday, Januii 20, 2016 by 4:30 PM Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: Avenues for Homeless Youth Program Name: Brooklyn Avenues Purpose: Providing emergency shelter and transitional housing with comprehensive, holistic support services to homeless youth in the northwestern suburbs of Hennepin County. program!rouorder to'be considered for these 1. Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status?X Eli 2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? X LI 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program?X 4. Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? X LI 5. 'Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply) • Employment services • Crime Prevention and public services LII • Health Services X • Substance abuse services • Housing Counseling X • Education programs 2L • Energy Conservation L:j , • Services for senior citizens • Services for homeless persons X Page 1 of 8 PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1) Proposed program description. Be concise, yet thorough in describing the activity of 20 only the program for which funding is being sought, and in only as much detail as needed. CDBG funds cannot be used to replace current program funds. If this is an existing program and your organization did not receive Brooklyn Center CDBG funds last year, the funds must be used to exoand the orouram or services. Brooklyn Avenues is a 12-bed shelter and transitional housing program for homeless youth, ages 16 to 21, from the northwest suburbs of Hennepin County. Homeless youth are provided the following supports: Crisis and Basic Needs: Upon arrival, Avenues staff address youths' immediate and crisis needs. We meet their basic needs by providing clean bedrooms and bathrooms, laundry facilities, three nutritious meals per day, clothing, personal hygiene supplies and bus tokens. Youth counselors and case managers provide direct care and guidance for the youth 24 hours per day. This support ranges from cooking meals together, playing games and watching movies in the evening, and having tough conversations in the middle of the night. Intensive Case Management: Once youth feel safer and stable, they are able to take advantage of Avenues' supportive services designed to help them begin healing from their trauma, then identify and pursue longer-term goals. Youth work with their case managers to develop a personalized plan for more independent living or reunification with family. Plans identify goals and action steps around immediate needs, employment, education, housing, mental and physical health, life skills and relationships. Avenues provides ongoing support, advocacy and service coordination with social services, educational and justice systems. In addition, youth receive assistance in obtaining vital documents, as lack of documentation is a significant barrier to success in obtaining employment, housing and education. Learning and Practice in Life Skills: Youth become successful through learning and practicing life skills at Avenues, including cooking and nutrition, money management, job search, cleaning and much more. Integrative Health and Wellness: The health and well-being of our youth is a paramount concern, especially given the traumas most have experienced and their lack of health care. Using a case management approach, Avenues provides health education, on-site nursing and mental health therapy, medical and mental health referrals, and complementary healing modalities (e.g., energy work, massage, mind-body awareness training, stress management training). This program has been expanded significantly in response to the increasingly complex needs of our youth. Today, we have a half-time mental health professional and interns on-site and contract with the Annex Teen Clinic for nursing consultation. Education Support: Thanks to a new grant from a local corporation, Avenues recently created an Education Support Specialist position. This new specialist coordinates care with our team of case manauers to urovide deener suort around educational goals to all of our youth, including Page 2 of 8 youth in after-care. Youth Empowerment and Engagement Activities: Avenues offers a variety of activities that help youth increase their self-esteem, self-determination and leadership capabilities. These include an online-community group, art and poetry group, self-defense classes, sexual health and risk reduction education, youth participation in interviews of prospective staff members and weekly house meetings. After-Care Supportive Services: When youth move out of Avenues, they don't actually leave our program. Rather, most youth take advantage of our after-care supportive services. We stay connected with our youth to support them as they navigate independent living (for those in stable housing arrangements), family issues (for those who moved in with family) and homelessness (for those who are not yet in stable housing). At any point in time, we are providing varying levels of support to over 50 young people who are no longer living with us. Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. Include 120 information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and population to be served. Avenues for Homeless Youth reduces the number of youth living on the streets and in other unstable situations. We provide all our youth access to housing and supportive services to help them pursue their personal goals. We design programs and services to have a lasting impact on our youth so they become thriving adults and make progress toward the following outcomes: ATTITUDE • Youth have more hope I a positive future orientation • Youth have an increased positive attitude • Youth feel more motivated • Youth build trust among their peers • Youth show pride in progress they have made SKILLS • Youth build life skills • Youth pursue their personal interests • Youth have improved self-worth • Youth engage in self-care and physical activity • Youth improve nutrition • Youth seek medical and mental health care • Youth avoid destructive behaviors • Youth follow through on commitments CONNECTIONS • Youth have connections with caring adults • Youth make connections with community resources • Youth are more willing to let people help • Youth are interested in helping others STABILITY • Youth gain and maintain employment or public benefits, as needed • Youth learn and manage financial responsibilities • Youth secure and manage long-term, stable housing Page 3 of 8 • Youth pursue training and educational goals • Youth pursue personal health and wellness 2)Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services for 10 which you are requesting funding? State the entities and briefly describe why your program is unique in the service activity you are proposing to fund. There are no similar programs in the area. 3)Do you plan to provide this service to other cities or jurisdictions?10 If yes, will CDBG funds be used? EYes [:]No Brooklyn Avenues is available to homeless youth in the northwest suburbs. The budget for Brooklyn Avenues is approximately $750,000 annually. Last year, we received CDBG funds totaling $29,309 from Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center and New Hope and the Hennepin County Consolidated Pool. We are applying for continued support from these communities this year. 4)Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor the P0results. Avenues for Homeless Youth uses both quantitative and qualitative tools to measure its effectiveness in helping youth achieve the goals in the chart above. Quantitatively, we track the youth participation and progress toward goals, such as housing, education, employment and life skills training. We now support over 250 youth every year, getting them out of crisis and helping them move toward stable independent living. Fully 70 to 75% of youth who live and participate in our programs move into stable living arrangements and 100% make progress on other goals. To improve evaluation of the qualitative, but very critical goal areas, we have developed an online self- assessment tool and are currently piloting it with youth. Our goal is to learn how well our youth are gaining a sense of safety and stability, developing a positive orientation to the future, building a healthy sense of self-worth and avoiding self-destructive behaviors. 5)Please describe how your program meets one or more of the City's priorities listed 20 below. (Check all that apply) See attachment for more information about city priorities. Resident Economic Stability Targeted Redevelopment Enhanced Community Image Inclusive Community Engagement Strengthened and Empowered Youth Key Infrastructure Investments Brooklyn Avenues in in alignment with the following City priorities: 1.Resident Economic Stability: Avenues keeps homeless young people in their home community and connects them with local opportunities. We provide youth with assistance around goal-setting for their education and securing employment. We engage with community employers to create internships and job training opportunities. We partner with Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth to connect our youth with opportunities. 2.Enhanced Community Image: Overall, being a community that supports homeless youth demonstrates that the City is one that cares about its youth and want to create local opportunities for them. In addition, having a local program like Brooklyn Avenues greatly Page 4 of 8 reduces the risk of homeless youth being sexually exploited or engaging in youth-led crimes. 3.Inclusive Community Involvement: Faith-based and civic organization have become intrinsically involved in the success of Brooklyn Avenues. The community-led advisory group meets monthly. 4.Strengthened and Empowered Youth: Youth at Avenues are provided the skills and tools to increase their independent living skills. They engage in positive youth development activities, including service learning activities, internships and the opportunity to engage in program decision-making (e.g., interviewing prospective staff and weekly house meetings). 6)Please describe how this program is ready for implementation and what steps would 20 need to be taken before this program can be started. The program started in February 2015 and has been full since opening. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 7)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you have 10 been able to meet the compliance requirements (please provide a copy of previous annual and quarterly reports). If you have been approved for federal/public funds previously, please state if you have an instance where you have not met the reimbursement requirements as a person or organization? Avenues has significant experience administering public funds. In addition to our current CDBG grants, Avenues administers grants and contracts with the following governmental entities: - US Department of Human Services, Federal Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) - MN Department of Human Services, Office of Economic Opportunity - Hennepin County Housing & Homeless Services - Department of Education Food & Nutrition - Group Residential Housing. Avenues has consistently met and will continue to meet all compliance and reimbursement requirements for its public funding. 8) If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn Center,20 please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and the accomplishments. Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications. Since its opening in February 2015, Brooklyn Avenues has supported 86 youth. By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Page 5 of 8 Applicant's Signature: Title: Executive Director Date: 1/20/2016 Received by: )t4. ad4Date: Z 0 1(O Time: .V.1'2 ii Page 6 of 8 CDBG Public Service Program Requirements City of Brooklyn Center Application Submittal Requirements Required Documents: 1.Completed and signed CDBG Supplemental Application 2.Copy of your Agency/Organization's 501 (c)(3) letter 3. Completed Public Service Funding Application Sr :ittal Requirements: • Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. • All applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked base on capacity, needs and funding priorities. • Preferred method of receiving the completed documents is a pdf sent by email to: Janderson@ci.brooklyn-center.rnn.us or mail, or hand deliver it to: City of Brooklyn Center, Building and Community Standards Department, Attn: Jesse Anderson, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Due date is by 4:30 PM, January 20, 2016. CDBG Public Service Project Information Amount of FY2016 CDBG funds available: Up to approximately $30,000 is available for social service organizations. Organizations typically are allocated between $7,500 and $15,000. A program receiving multi-city CDBG funding may be allocated an amount less than $7,500. The City may choose to not fund requesting public service agencies. Funding Priorities: • Program that support the city of Brooklyn Center Strategic Priorities • Programs supporting services to youth, diversity in the community, or that leverage community resources. • In addition eligible activities include, but are not limited to those relating to; family self- sufficiency, counseling, domestic abuse, seniors, affordable housing, job readiness and training. Program Requirements: • Activities must benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD and listed on the chart below. o Organization must have a 501 (c)(3) status. o Income-eligible certification must be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51% are from low- to moderate income households. o Organization must have the staff capacity to administer the program and be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement. Page 7 of 8 Timeline and Program Dates: • January 20, 2016, by 4:30 PM, completed application due back to city hail. o February 8, 2016, 7:00 PM Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Meeting offers opportunity for short (3-5 minute) testimony from each applicant. After public hearing the Council members will make final decision for the allocation of CDBG funds. • July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017 spend down timeline of FY20 16 finds. No reimbursements can be made for program activities spent prior to HUD final approval, most likely on or shortly after July 1, 2016. Funds will be reimbursed after program activities have taken place, expenses have been paid, and required documentation has been submitted. • June 30, 2017 Final Reimbursement • January 1, 2017 - At least one reimbursement request must be submitted. Page 8 of 8 Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDG Program Year 2016 Please answer below in this column General nformation: Organization: Avenues for Homeless Youth Type of entity: CDBG funding request: Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor costs): Contact person: Phone/Email: Program Onformatiom Non-profit $10,000 Staffing Julia O'Brien 612844-2012/Iobrien@avenueSfOrVoUth.Org What is the program name/type of service? Is this an existing CDBGfunded program? Where is the program located, if applicable? What is the service area of this program? Who is the target clientle? Brooklyn Avenues/Housing and services for homeless youth ages 16-21 Yes 7210 76th Ave N Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Northwestern suburbs of Hennepin County Homeless youth, ages 16-21 What needs does this program address? Homeless youth Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDG Program Year 2016 Is the need growing? How does the program address these needs? Yes, the need is growing. Every three years, Wilder Research conducts a detailed, statewide count of homeless persons in Minnesota. The number of homeless youth is up from 2,500 in Wilder's 2009 study - a 63% increase. And, according to Wilder, these are conservative numbers. The actual number of youth experiencing homelessness is likely higher. Minnesota has very limited youth-specific shelter and transitional housing capacity. The fact is that about 87% of homeless youth in the state are on the streets, couch- hopping, riding buses all night, or staying in other unstable situations that can be unsafe, including adult shelters. Brooklyn Avenues provides housing and services for homeless youth. 86 youth were served since the program opened, February - December 2015 (11 months) 80-100, including e-bed How many persons were served by this program in the 12 months? What is your goal for number of persons served July 2016 - June 2017? What percentage of clients are (or are estimated to be) low and moderate-income persons? CDBG requires at 100% Staffing and Financial Capacity: Describe the organization's experience in providing this Avenues has been in existence for over 21 years and brings service, staff capacity and staff qualifications: significant experience, key learnings and strong community connections to its work to support homeless youth. See attachment for key personnel. Awards must be spent by June 30, 2017, and it is We will expend the funds by March 31, 2017. requested that funds be spent by April 1, 2017. When is the anticipated date to expend the funds? I LCDBG $ 36,000.00 'er federal funding $ 170,000.00 Local funding $ 100,000.00 Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services)[I Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 I Corporate/Civic contributions $70,000.00 Foundation contributions $130,000.00 Hennepin County $100,000.00 Individuals $75,000.00 Consistency with Plans and Public Support: Is this a high, medium, or low priority service according This is a a High Priority service as it meets the High Priority to the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan? *Applications will be reviewed and ranked based on the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan high priorities. Community Development Need under Youth Services, Strategy 8, calling for outreach and intervention services, particularly to homeless and runaway youth and youth at risk. In addition, it provides for support services for immigrant youth - many of whom are from African nations and homeless. Strong leadership and financial support has come from cities' employees and councils, police department, faith- Describe any multi-community, multi-agency or based and civic organizations, school partners, other youth public/private partnership support: serving nonprofit organizations and the general public. There are no other youth-specific, site-based shelter and Describe how the activity meets a need not currently or transitional housing programs for homeless youth in crisis in adequately being addressed by other services: the northwest suburbs. Internal Revenue Service Date: September 13, 2004 Avenues for Homeless Youth 1708 Oak Park Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 Department of the Treasury P. 0. Box 2508 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Person to Contact: Stephanie Broach-Camp 31-04022 Customer Service Specialist Toll Free Telephone Number: 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. EST 877-829-5500 Fax Number: 513-263-3756 Federal Identification Number: 41-1765140 Dear Sir or Madam: This is in response to the amendment to your organization's Articles of Incorporation filed with the state on June 2, 2004. We have updated our records to reflect the name change as indicated above. In February 1995 we issued a determination letter that recognized your organization as exempt from federal income tax. Our records indicate that your organization is currently exempt under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records indicate that your organization is also classified as a public charity under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue Code. Our records indicate that contributions to your organization are deductible under section 170 of the Code, and that you are qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the !nternal Revenue Code. If you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. Sincerely, Janna K. Skufca, Director, TE/GE Customer Account Services Avenues for Homeless Youth Staff Leadership Deborah Loon, Executive Director, joined Avenues for Homeless Youth in February 2008 as the organization's interim executive director. After leading the organization to stability, she realized she was hooked on the work of supporting homeless youth and agreed to continue as its executive director. Deh has led Avenues' significant program and organizational growth in recent years. Previously, Deb provided nonprofit organizations with transitional leadership and strategic change consulting services for nine years, and served a wide variety of organizations as their interim executive director. Deb has a Bachelor's Degree from St. Olaf College and extensive experience in the for-profit sector, including in management, government relations and public relations. She serves on the Board of Directors for Clare Housing and the Advisory Board for Rebuilding Together - Twin Cities. Peter Fischer, Director of Finance & Operations, joined Avenues for Homeless Youth in June 2007. As the Director of Finance & Operations, he is responsible for all facility operations, human resources and financial management. Peter holds a Bachelor's degree in Business and has over 30 years of business, operations, and general management experience. He was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2012 and re-elected in 2014. Zayed Lamu Ahmed, PhD, LPCC, LICSW, Program Director, was promoted at Avenues for Homeless Youth as its Program Director in November 2015 after spending two years as the organization's part- time mental health therapist and clinical consultant. Dr. Ahmed received her Doctorate of Philosophy in Psychology from the Sofia University in Palo Alto, CA. She holds the licensures of Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor ( LPCC) and Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker (LICSW). Along with her strong individuality and enthusiasm for working with youth, she brings with her experiences working in various counseling capacities at The Emily Program, Face to Face, Kente Circle, Amicus, and Family and Children's Services. Raquel (Rocki) Simöes, MSW, USW, Program Manager, GLBT Host Home Program, is a white Brazilian who came to the United States in the late 80s, fell in love with women and rice krispies treats (not necessarily in that order) and decided to stay. Most of her community organizing work has focused on queer youth, homelessness, and social justice. Most of her personal work has focused on being a loving friend, partner, ex-partner, anti-racist community member, and parent. On a good day she does some of these things well. Rocki has been at Avenues since 2007 and has a long history with the GLBT Host Home Program, which she helped start in 1997. She was honored for her work with a True Leadership Award by the True Colors Fund in September 2015. Ryan Berg, Program Manager, Minneapolis & Suburban Host Home Program, joined Avenues in November of 2013 as a youth counselor. Before coming to Minnesota, he was a residential counselor and case manager for LGBTQ youth in foster care in New York City. In addition to youth work, Ryan is a published author, focusing on the crossroads between youth, poverty, sexuality, homelessness and health. His book about LGBTQ youth homelessness and foster care, "No House to Call My Home: Love, Family and Other Transgressions," was recently published by Nation Books. Ryan holds a Masters in Fine Arts from Hunter College. Julia O'Brien, Donor Engagement Manager, joined Avenues in March 2015. She coordinates relations with the civic organizations, corporate community, foundations and individuals. Julia has been involved in the non-profit sector as both a board member and employee for many years. She began her career in investments and was a VP for Wells Fargo before she transitioned to the non-profit sector. Julia holds a BA in History form University of Wisconsin-Madison and an MBA from St. Thomas University. Melissa Peterson, Community Engagement Manager, joined Avenues in January 2013. She coordinates relations with the faith community and manages our volunteer and in-kind giving programs. Prior to joining Avenues, Melissa was Director of Capacity Building at the national headquarters of Love INC, where she consulted with nonprofit leaders to improve and enhance the affiliate's ability to achieve its mission and sustain itself overtime. She also provides trauma-informed, adoption-competent parent coaching through her business, Refined Parenting. Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds I!J!J riiuiii1 Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: CAPT USA Program Name: Asian Fresh Produce Distributions Purpose: CAPT proposes to conduct a monthly fresh produce distribution to Brooklyn Center Hmong seniors and others while also offering information and resources to address self-sufficiency I I' I t I I''I I' i '11,1 1 Dès your Orgarnzation jave a 501 (c)(3) status 9 LI 2, Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with less El than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? ' 3 Does your p iniztio have the staff capacity to administer the program9 1)J El 4. Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain N LI reimbursement? J 5 ngVhioli of the followi Eligible Pub1c Service Activities will the program pryj4e7 {ChooseAlitlatpp1y) - - •Employment services Crime ire7ntion ncfpub1i& iices. i LI- [1111______ • Health Services LI Substance abtie srviees-0 At,lU- o Housing Counseling Eli E e iducatioi progfams -III LI Uo Energy Conservation o Services foi sthoi citizens - • Services for homeless persons LII El Page 1 of PROGRAM PROPOSAL •-.. CAPT proposes to partner with Second Harvest and Brooklyn Center-based Kashia Adult Day Services to implement a monthly fresh produce distribution targeting low-income Hmong seniors who are served by Kashia Adult Day Services. Once each month throughout the year, three multi-lingual CAN staff and several volunteers will distribute approxithately 4,000 pounds of free fresh produce (or 48,000 total pounds from 12 distributions) to Hmong elders and other nearby residents. Approximately 100 people are expected to be served with each distribution (i.e., 40 pounds of healthy food per person). In distributing the food, CAPT multi-lingual staff will share additional information and resources about other CAN programs, and may enroll Brooklyn Center in a number of services including CAPT's Hmong Seniors Program, SNAP and MN Sure enrollment, employment services, our Asian-Specific Food Shelf (based in Minneapolis), one of many CAPT community gardens, and more. Kashia Adult Day Services staff will assist seniors load their fresh produce on Kashia vans so that senior's food can be delivered to their homes (Kashia drops their seniors off at the end of the day). There is a significant need for this service. CAPT's Hmong seniors fresh produce distribution was highlighted in a Brooklyn Center Sun Times article in August 2015 bpjl-ciitciL). This project provides free, high quality and culturally appropriate food to a population that is fairly isolated and in need of nutritious food. The cost of the service is relatively small for the amount of food distributed (CAPT pays Second Harvest just $45 per distribution, with each distribution averaging 4,000 pounds of food). It is critically important to have Hmong- speaking CAPI staff available to organize and distribute the food. Anticipated results include at least 100 people served per distribution and a total of 48,000 pounds of food distributed. Equally imoortant, we expect to enroll approximately 25 people in other CAPI services. CEAP administers a food shelf from the Northwest Hennepin County Service Hub, but it appears that relatively few Hmong (and other immigrant/refugee populations) access this food shelf, in all likelihood due to CEAP's linguistic capacity. Several organizations in the Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park area have reached out to CAPI to fill food and meal gaps in Northwest Hennepin rniintv. narticularlv within immigrant/refugee communities. . ...-.----------------- Page 2 of 6 We are seeking funds to also provide a monthly produce distribution in North Minneapolis targeting the Hmong community. CDBG funds will not be sought for this service. 6)P1 1ease lbsciib&how yo Ia1L to recordand report accomplishmens ançl moIntor 20 the -results We are committed to counting the number of people served per distribution and keeping records of each distribution on the numbers served and the pounds of produce given away (with general summaries on what types of food was distributed). We will also keep record of all people enrolled in CAPT programs (using the distributions as a vehicle to educate and enroll people).- 7)Please dscribehowyour pr iets one or mote of the City's pnpnties 20 listed below (Check-all that apply) See atticlimerit for more mformiTfl about - city priorities Resident Economic Stability - Targeted Redevelopment - - - -Li Enhanced Community Image LI-- .1 1 'Inclusive Conuniy-Engaemnt : :1 ' - Strengthened and Empowered Youth LI Kdylnfrastructure:Investhielits Describe: This program addresses the fundamental need for nutritious and culturally appropriate food for elderly citizens who are socially and linguistically isolated. This program builds community and is deeply appreciated. 8)Pleasë aesotibe howthis progiamthiedy foi nnplementatiorr ancLwhat Sèps 211- d- I b ken this b Jneed eta ore-rogiarn can started -______ Kashia Adult Day Services and Second Harvest are already on board. Upon receiving a grant award, we will proceed to create a monthly distribution schedule and begin informing people. CAPT invites anyone and everyone to volunteer with this activity. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 9)Please descube yQur experience administering federal/public fuids and how you 1Q - IREha''e been able to meet the compliance requirements (please provide copyf -*. pievious aimual and quarterly reports) 10) If u bae beei npro'}el for fedei allpublic funds previously, please state if you have an mstance wheie o!u have rot me'i hë reimbursement iequirenents as a' person or otgamzati6n 9 CAPT currently administers 9 different performance-based government contracts at the city (Minneapolis), county (Hennepin), state (i.e., DEED, DHS, MDH), and federal (FEMA) level. Please see CAPI's most recent annual report. CAPT has NOT had an instance where we have not met reimbursement requirements.n'.f you have previously beenfutided thiough CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, pleae provide a breakdov 1 ohhe services that have beenprovided to Brooklyn Center iesidents and the accoinphshnfents Please include demogiaphic information, how many served, and associated e'penses 01 othei financial implications We have not previously received CDBG funding through Brooklyn Center. Page 3 of By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Page 4 of 6 -rD • .Di CD CDCD •x •in (D V 2 2 CD ri 3 3 wCD —3 -N CD O •Q CD CD -.a. V V2 Di CD2SDCfu33 CD 0 Di3 -4..0-i3 Dii-p 0 •v 0. 00 CD Di rn •0 Di Di0 C CD 0-t 0 0. CD qQ PtDi DiC-0 0(IC (A 00w 0. Dii CD.0CCD Pt •0DiiiID Di o 2.- NID DC (Di 0P. CD CD-CDi -4..0 I 1. 0 0 >0 -n CD0i :1- 0 0000CD 00 C-)CD z0 V 0 0 0 0 •0 CDDiDiCD Dl IA CD C-CD 0 Ill 00 3 Ln 0 0 0 S. m 0 -. . g 5 • -iiiDi r. - Cor:. a. (D 0Di - 5 . m - rDIll 0 0 0 rJ -1J -1 CD (_n -I -< oti C-NJ -0 NJ CD I :rD -<II I-O Di Ui11-in U1co 0 (ADi -. Ln 0-Dii C Ui in-o Q 00 1 I-( inII CD NJ NJ' CD -in CDX CD vi 00 CM 1Q -n 0) 0) 0) I I00 Q)a) 3 CD CD CDCD CD -.CD 0CD CD CDCDoCDCD0..CD a C. ju UQ0 C" 0CDCD CD uiCD 0 -. (1 CD 'J -.CD -,CD 3 •0 IT'-CD CDCL - C CD CDCD CDCD-3fD0CDCDCD ID 0 2: CD Cl)CDCDCD CD C" C"CDCDC"IT'0 CD CD CDC. CD 2 0 E. C.NJ -C'CD -C' CD NJN-) C.CD 33N-)0 00.-CD '.1 rP 03CD •0CD 0 Cr C) CD NJ Q)-CD - IJ '0 <CD CCDO n>7 " IC 0 I -BC) CC 0 0g + CDt)0 CD C) CLC'C C'CD0 -.?. a - -:C CD 0 0)qCD C'"'C'_-0 CD 0CDCDa'0 CD' CC CD •g BCL 20- CD0 0CD CO CD CDC CD -0CD 00- CD ' CD CD B-o><CD CD Di CD E - ,0_ CC -<-' '0o -'-. -' •• CD CD 1 c C C CD0CD0- C 0- 01) CC o I 01)0- =CD'<ID CD CD CD ,0 CD .0 '0 aCDgCDNJ0CD CD CCDIIa0<CC) •a '0 CD -. CD j -.a_N CD CD-CD 0-,,0 CD - = CL CC g0 CD CD o---CD CD C) 0F,CD CD CL CD 0 CD=Ui CC) (CD Cr0- CD ,-,CDCD o 0<CD CL a-CDCDCL-.CD CC-.C) CD CD 3=CD -0 -CD fDCD Ui CDCD CD CD B -< CD -.B CD 0-CD CDC) CD C)=1 CD 0- 0- 0 CD CL (0 r '0 CD CD U0 0 CD B -rD CD 5CD -SL T- > 0 CL 0 CD rD CL fD ,0-_<.00-CL -.CD CDCD CD 0 CL CD -' CD''CD _.<-'ICC a<C 20-0 c CD CD CD CD CD 00)CD CD 0 w CL 00 CDCL I') D CD (D ? 0) r-. -o o? 0)0) CD C 5' l.nl- CD CDI)') iuI C:B 0 0 D -DDi Di0.B Di CD 0. (0R Di CD -0 0. 0Dizr 00 Di M . I CD Di0. 0 - -CL C:0. CD i I CD Di 0 Di CD 3Di <0 B 2: . = CD Di 3 0 fl :i C:C > • 0 l -. -D CD (0 . • 0 0 ,- Di CD CDCD ri Di CD B _. 0 0 .< CL Di 0(0 o CD - I>Di 0 flDi 00lCD:L Di CD 3 0 0 000 Di 3 ar Cl Di C: CD2DiCD CL0 Di Di = Di Di Cl .= - 2^.:EC-)CD Di rC0 < g --q 0 < —CDCDDiCD CD 0 CD E2.-DiOCD GD. ClDi rD Di , CD -. . CLCD 0 Di80) CD Fa 8 CD(03 (03 ID 2 CLI B CD CJ) 0. 9 N0 .4 CD CD Di Di CD0. 0.Di CD 0 CD,DC 0CD 0. CD C 0. CD CD ou 0 - CD NJC 01 r a) o cra . I CL 0 G) a)a)C C - 0 0m 0 ••CD 0.CDf - 0 0 C C. 0 I w 00 •0 0 CDDi CD0. B B C)rn 0 (I, (tx0a' a' 0 00 a' 0 0 0) B 0) (p 0) 0) 0) 0 a' 0 00 zi C)a' a' a' 0 (0 0 a' CD rrDi ICD CD 0 0 -(Di3 CDDi 0 0 cr 1 (JiCD CD Di 0 Di3 Iz 0 Di r.nCD 0 (ICCD CD(I) CAPE guiding self-determination & social equality I DUD L11I E1IiiiptV NI1or)o o jJ ibj (i o o ____ modritpii 1(YEfiO -- o ovI (Ii)C)Th) o E4i (rf 11i 1Tii ire C) biij iiJ 1311 ()'1C)) o 'iV Fir'I oifjIi ifsiTh 01 -Ar1i fW@TTI I- ussions IF I-ffh lijj ir.cted @ifl1rnj iL''. - At CAPI we take seriously our role in building vibrant communities and assisting our newest Americans. We are excited to present our new logo that visually represents the role of 'navigator' that we play in the lives of many of Minnesota's new immigrants who come here from so many parts of the world. We create social and economic opportunities that link Minnesota's collective ethnic communities to the resources that they need to thrive. These include equitable housing, transportation, opportunities for employment, education and advancement. CAPI champions social justice by bringing healthy and appropriate foods, health care, and civic engagement to all. We strive to bring all voices together to create policies of self- determination. CAPI volunteers are invested in our work to help individuals and to advance communities. Because of donor support, we are able to predict and then meet the unique and diverse needs of each community. We provide hope to people who are making unimaginable transitions in their lives. Through the efforts of our experienced and competent staff, our clients and partners gain strength in their resilience, and create success for their families, children and older relatives. We are proud of the past three years of successful management that has helped us create a foundation to expand into new areas. We have built a new infrastructure, new data-collection, reporting, billing and evaluation systems. Thank you for your continued support of CAN as together we foster self-determination and social justice for all. Warm regards and many thanks, 1ek+ Pkk Ekta Prakash, Executive Director In 2014, CARl USA served 3,000+ immigrants, refugees and others via a growing portfolio of programs administered at four sites. FOOD and NUTRITION SERVICES An average of 468 food insecure Asian. ;L Ma guiyen: A Shared Experience Mal volunteers in the Food Shelf because she is reminded of the difficulties her family experienced when she arrived as a young child from Vietnam in 1979. Because of Mai's first hand experience, she sees how providing culturally specific foods and critical services such as health, housing and employment ease the transition into American society. "I can empathize with the clients because I have been in the same situation." HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES In collaboration with the Lao Assistance Center of MN, CAPI's Immunization Partner Network immunized 886 participants with vaccines during the year and 238 were fully immunized. The 9 partner Immunization Partner Network actively hosted 2 meetings around improving immunization rates. In collaboration with Portico Health, CAPI's 6 accredited navigators assisted 956 immigrants and refugees to enroll in a MN Sure health plan. CAPI's Hmong Elder & Caregiver Support Program served 245 caregivers and indirectly supported 581 Hmong elders. CAPI's Refugee Resettlement Services assisted 46 new arrivals with resettlement issues, housing, and independent functions including 43 outcomes. ' households received nutritious food each month from CAPI's Asian-specific food shelf. A total of 440,462 pounds of food were distributed. 545 food shelf recipients were referred and connected to information, screened and provided at least one economic support service. CAPI sponsored 15 community gardens, supported approximately 322 immigrant gardeners, one mini-farmers market and hosted 12 nutrition classes. In addition, CAPI partnered with the Gleaning Garden farmers markets and individual farmers to distribute about 4,469 pounds of fresh produce during the summer. CAPI received the Home Grown Hero award from the City of Mpls Home Grown. aviqors Mag a Difference Without English language kin skills a mother of five was unable to establish a secure life for family. With the help of a CAPI navigator she was able to identify needed services and how to tap into them. Within two months her life had transformed. She had schooling for her children, clothing and household goods, health care, secure housing, a job and was well on her way to English Language proficiency. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CAPI's workforce programs help individuals secure sustainable career pathways via educational and vocational training programs, job placement, and other support services. CAPI's MFIP, Refugee Employment, and Immigrant Career Pathways programs served 634 individuals and facilitated 205 job placements during the year. In addition, over 50 new employer relationhips were developed in 2014. CAPI significantly enhanced its workforce development capacity with the addition of two full-time Minnesota Corps members and a full-time Phillips Family P Foundation VISTA member. CAPI facilitated basic financial literacy training to 57 refugees and immigrants. The following language groups were offered: Somali, Karen/Burmese, Hmong, and Vietnamese. Post surveys show that 78% of the participants gained an increased awareness and understanding of financial topics. I. £LI CMC ENGAGEMENT and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAPI's 2014 voter participation organizing activities led to 603 registered and pledged voters. In addition, 7 individuals participated in CAPI's first ever Community Leader program. This program provided leadership and civic engagement training. CAPI also conducted outreach and education to over 200 regarding the development of the Bottineau/Blue Transit Line, specifically as it relates to the impact on job access and the North Minneapolis station planning. CAPI provided formal feedback to Hennepin County regarding its Blue Line proposal. CAPI continued to be an active participant in shaping the discussion and plans to relocate the North Minneapolis Workforce Center to ensure that the new Center will meet the needs of our participants. Short Time Transformation In little over 2 months one naturalized citizen went from being someone who was unemployed, without means of transportation, and a non voter, to someone with a bright future. With CAPI's help she developed valuable employment skills, educated community members about voting rights, interacted with the public at outreach events, and mastered public transportation With increased self-confidence and assertiveness she was able to find employment. Finding Employment Finding Safety New immigrants who have fled persecution in their home countries have an added urgency to finding employment. Steady work means being able to bring ] family members to safety and the ability support them once I they arrive in the L United States. CAPI USA ended its fiscal year with a surplus of $34,975. CAPI's financial position is strong and will help to ensure the agency's longer-term sustain ability. 2014 CONTRIBUTORS $50,000+ Department of Economic and Education Department Hennepin County McKnight Foundation MN Department of Health MN Department of Human Services United Way $25,000 - $49,999 Minneapolis Foundation Otto Bremer Foundation Wells Fargo Foundation $10,000- $24,999 General Mills Foundation Marbrook Foundation Minnesota State Voices Newman Foundation Nexus Community Partners Stevens Square Foundation Target Foundation Thrivent Financial UCare Fund $1,000 -$9,999 Archi and Bertha Foundation Burdick Foundation Eldercare Partners Hunger Free Minnesota James R Thorpe Foundation Messerli and Kramer Foundation Second Harvest Heartland Warren Foundation Westminster Church CORPORATE VOLUNTEERS Target Wells Fargo LUnited SWay L MEETSSTAND DS MACC Alliance ofConnectedCommunities BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS Theresa Haynes, Chair Tennant Company Michael Thorsteinson, Vice Chair Executive Director Three Rivers Community Action Frank Wang, Secretary Senior Director of Strategic Analytics, GE Healthcare DIRECTORS Vina Kay Executive Director Voices for Racial Justice Abigail Gadea Evaluation Implementation Specialist Department of Pediatrics U of MN Danushka Wanduragala LEP Communications Planner Minnesota Department of Health Colleen Finnegan Private Attorney (Past Chair) Kabo Yang Principal Consultant Legend Consultant Services Amanda Shold St. Croix Hospice Volunteer Coordinator , QLj[]Q vmu -'APT,140^1 - 3702 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 612.721.0122 1 CAPIUSA.ORG I_____ 9 11LJ[1I - __________- -' 2014 FINANCIAL POSITION January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 Balance Sheet ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 534,816 Accounts Receivable $162,978 Pledges Receivable $ 49,000 Prepaid Expenses $ 49,281 Fixed Assets Less Accumulated $1,530,504 Depreciation Long Term Investments $ 11,942 TOTAL ASSETS $2,338,521 LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $18,517 Accrued Expense $ 8,422 Accrued and Withheld Payroll $48,347 Deferred Revenue $1,560 TOTAL LIABILITIES $76,846 NET ASSETS Unrestricted Assets $30,947 Temporary Restricted Assets $239,456 Designated Assets $1,954,108 Net Surplus/(Deficit) $34,975 TOTAL NET ASSETS $2,261,675 TOTAL NET ASSETS and LIABILITIES $2,338,521 Revenue and Expenses 2014 REVENUE Contributions $570,240 Government Income $762,095 United Way $74,172 Program Fees $18,372 Miscellaneous Income $460 TOTAL REVENUE $1,425,339 2014 EXPENSES CAPI Programs $1,179,402 Management/Administration $166,044 Fundraising $44,918 TOTAL EXPENSES $1,390,364 SURPLUS $34,975 [ Q Department of the TreasuryI/J .1. t. T*sterzial Revenue Service P.O. Box 2508, Room 4010 Cincinnati CM 45201 In reply refer to: 4077550277 Apr. 07, 2010 LTR 4168C 0 41-1417198 000000 00 00033056 BODC:' TE CAPI USA 3702 E LAKE ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55046 055947 Employer Identification Number: **-***7198 Person to Contact: Ms Benjamin Tall Free Telephone Number: 1-877-829-55110 Dear Taxaer: This is in response to your Feb. 10, 2010, request for information regarding your tax-exempt status. Our records indicate that your organization was recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in a determination letter issued in May 1982. Our records also indicate that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are described in section(s) 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. Beginning with the organizations sixth taxable year and all succeeding years, it must meet one of the public support tests under section 170(b)(1)(4)(vi) or section 509(a)(2) as reported on Schedule A of tfib Form 9,90. If your organization dctesriot' meet the public suort test for two consecutive years, 'it-is required to file Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation, for the second tax year that the organization failed to meet the support test and will be reclassified as a private foundation. If you have any 'questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. /jJ 3gric (i-I) 1'0'1 RIMIN A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www. cityo fbrooklyn center. org Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds SuppementaD App flcatilon Due: Monday, Januaiy 20, 2016 by 4:30 PM Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: Lao Assistance Center of Minnesota (LACM) Program Name: Housing Counseling Services Purpose: To provide cultural and linguistically appropriate HUD certified 1-on-I and group housing counseling services to Brooklyn Center Laotian residents focused on home buying, rental assistance and foreclosure prevention. n bq'n orderfd. be considered for these program you must meet the Minimum 1.Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status? Yes 2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by 1-IUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program? 4.Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? M El 5. Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply) Employment services El EJ • Crime Prevention and public services El El Health Services El 0 Substance abuse services Housing Counseling _i_L1 0 Education programs Energy Conservation L[fi o Services for senior citizens • Services for homeless persons Page 1 of PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1) Proposed program description. of only the program for which fun( as needed. -----------1 ------------ existing program ana your oc £.._-L. 1..-.4-,....-...... 41,.-. t,,,.-1,, activity 20 h detail -n 2DBG 7 The primary goal of the Lao Assistance Center of Minnesota's (LACM) Housing Counseling Services Program is to promote the American Dream of buying and retaining affordable housing. Our secondary goal is to ensure stable and affordable rental options for Lao community members who are not in a position to purchase a home. The LACM's Housing Counseling Services Program provides cultural and linguistic- specific HUD certified 1-on-1 and group housing counseling services that will yield positive outcomes for 140 Lao and other low-income community members living primarily in North Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. These services are administered by .75 FTE LACM staff including two of the state's only Lao-speaking HUD certified Housing Counselors. A summary of LACM's three primary Housing Services offered include: 1)Renter assistance - In 2016, LACM counselors will provide 1-on-i rental assistance counseling to 40 individuals and facilitate two rental assistance workshops involving 20 participants. People receiving i-on-i rental assistance will secure HUD public housing certification and recertification and/or obtain less expensive/affordable apartment units. LACM counselors will provide substantial one-on-one assistance, helping community members complete housing applications and identify and secure affordable unsubsidized apartment units, 2)Pre purchase and post purchase assistance - In 2016, LACM counselors will provide 1-on-i pre-purchase counseling to 25 individuals and post purchase counseling to 5 individuals. Staff will also facilitate 8 HUC certified home-buyer workshops involving 80 participants. 3) Foreclosure prevention assistance - in 2016, LACM counselors will provide intensive home foreclosure assistance to 10 individuals and facilitate two workshops involving 20 participants. Of the 140 total people we expect to serve in 2016, we expect that at least 25 will be Brooklyn Center residents. 2) Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. 20 Include information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and population to be served. 1) 80 Lao community members will receive 1-IUD certified i-on-i housing counseling services on rent (40), pre-purchasing (25), post-purchasing (5), and Page 2 of 6 foreclosure prevention (10) 2)120 Lao community members will participate in workshops on: home buying (80), rental assistance (20), and foreclosure prevention (20). 3)90% receiving rental assistance will secure/sustain affordable housing and 50% will be certified/recertified for public housing 4)80% receiving pre-purchasing assistance will complete an action plan and 25% will purchase a home within one year 5)80% receiving home foreclosure assistance will complete action plans and 25% will obtain remedies that result in maintaining homes 6)Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services 10 for which yo are requesting fi.uding? State the entities and briefly describe why our pro is uni ue in the service activi ou are ro osin to fund. We have not previously received CDBG funds for this or any LACM program. Of the 140 people we expect to serve in 1-on-i counseling and workshops at least 25 are expected to be Brooklyn Center residents. 7)DQ you plan to provide this service to other citi ores junsdictions 9 10 8Y.1 ys, will CDBG funds be used ,,?,.' Eyes No We expect to serve a total of 140 mostly low-income Lao community members who are primarily residents of North Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. We hope to secure first ever funds from Brooklyn Park ($5,000 pending) and Brooklyn Center ($5,000) 9)Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor 20. theresults.. Client participation in workshops and I -on-I counseling as well as all client outcomes is tracked by LACM's Housing Coordinator who utilizes HUD's Counselormax database, Results are monitored on a monthly basis by the Housing Coordinator and results are easily reported on a quarterly basis. 10)Please describe how your program meets one or more of the City's priorities 20 lièted below. (Check all that appl)) See attachment for more information about city priorities. Resident Economic Stability - - Targeted Redevelopment 0 Enhanced Community Image -- Inclusive Community Engagement UStrengthened and Empowered Youth Infrastructure Investments .-, 11)Please describe how tins program is ready for implementation and what steps 20 -- would need to be taken before tins program can be started ___________ LAC M's Housing Counseling Services promote Lao resident economic stability and help to ensure culturally and linguistically appropriate services are available to Brooklyn Center Lao residents, which ultimately promotes inclusive community engagement. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 12)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you 10 have been able to meet the compliance requirements. (please provide a copy of pevious annualand qurter1y reports) 13) if Lou have -been ap proved for federal/public funds p US1)2.PLaSC state if. 0u..___ Page of ha e.aninstaiice where you have not'metthe reinibursement requirements as a person brrganizalion? LACM currently administers contracts with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), the Minnesota Department of Health, and the Minnesota Department of Human Services. To date, LACM has not secured CDBG funding but we are familiar with cost reimbursement contracts and fulfilling data and reporting requirements, and we can't think of an instance where we did not meet reimbursement requirements. 14) If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and.--66.accQmphshmtnts Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications N/A By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Applicant's SigTitle: xecive Director Date: January 19, 2016 Received by:24 Date:1 2-0 1 to Time:'?: 'I ,4,1 Page 4 of 6 CDBG Public Service Program Requirements City of Brooklyn Center Application Submittal Requirements Required Documents: 1.Completed and signed CDBG Supplemental Application 2.Copy of your Agency/Organization's 501(c)(3) letter 3. Completed Public Service Funding Application Submittal Requirements: • Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. • All applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked base on capacity, needs and funding priorities. • Preferred method of receiving the completed documents is a pdf sent by email to: Jandersonci.brooklyn-center.mn .US or mail, or hand deliver it to: City of Brooklyn Center, Building and Community Standards Department, Attn: Jesse Anderson, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Due date is by 4:30 PM, January 20, 2016. CDBG Public Service Project Information Amount of FY2016 CDBG funds available: Up to approximately $30,000 is available for social service organizations. Organizations typically are allocated between $7,500 and $15,000. A program receiving multi-city CDBG funding may be allocated an amount less than $7,500. The City may choose to not fund requesting public service agencies. Funding Priorities • Program that support the city of Brooklyn Center Strategic Priorities • Programs supporting services to youth, diversity in the community, or that leverage community resources. In addition eligible activities include, but are not limited to those relating to; family self-sufficiency, counseling, domestic abuse, seniors, affordable housing, job readiness and training. Program Requirements: • Activities must benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AM!) as stated by HUD and listed on the chart below. • Organization must have a 501 (c)(3) status. • Income-eligible certification must be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51% are from low- to moderate income households. • Organization must have the staff capacity to administer the program and be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement. Page 5 of 6 Timeline and Program Dates: January 20, 2016, by 4:30 PM, completed application due back to city hail. February 8, 2016, 7:00 PM Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Meeting offers opportunity for short (3-5 minute) testimony from each applicant. After public hearing the Council members will make final decision for the allocation of CDBG funds. July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017 - spend down timeline ofFY2Ol6 funds. No reimbursements can be made for program activities spent prior to HUD final approval, most likely on or shortly after July 1, 2016. Funds will be reimbursed after program activities have taken place, expenses have been paid, and required documentation has been submitted. June 30, 2017 Final Reimbursement 0 January 1, 2017— At least one reimbursement request must be submitted. Page 6 of 6 - Public Service AppHkion Ouruilly, youth ccind seniov services Urcbririi Hennepihi County CDRG Pjmi Yew 2016 Please answer below in this column General Information: Organization: Lao Assistance Center of Minnesota (LACM) Type of entity: CDBG funding request: Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor costs) Contact person: Phone/Emil: Program Information: What is the program name/type of service? Is this an existing CDBG-funded program? Non-profit $5,000 Staff labor costs Sunny Chanthanouvong 612-374-4967 and Sunnylaocenter.org Housing Counseling Services No Where is the program located, if applicable? 503 Irving Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55405 however staff are able to travel to Brooklyn Center for 1-on-1 and group services What is the service area of this program? The program serves primarily Lao community members who are residents of North Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park Who is the target clientle? Low to moderate income Lao community members, many who speak limited English What needs does this program address? The lack of affordable rental housing (with many community members spending 60-70% of their income on housing); the need for cultural and linguistically-specific home buying counseling for those in a position to purchase a home; and the need for assistance to Lao community members who are at risk of home foreclosure. Is the need growing? There is a growing need for i-on-i rental assistance and homebuying (pre-purchase and post purchase) counseling. While there is still a need for home foreclosure counseling this need is declining. How does the program address these needs? LACM provides 1-on-1 rental assistance, home-buying and foreclosure counseling services and monthly workshops. We work intensively with Lao community members to get results. How many persons were served by this program in the last 12 months? 162 What is your goal for number of persons served July 2016 - June 2017? What percentage of clients are (or are estimated to be) low and moderate-income persons? CDBG requires at least 51%. A total of 120 will participae in workshops and 80 will participate in 1-on-1 services. A total of 25 Brooklyn Center residents will participate in workshops and 1-on-1 services. i00% Staffing and Financial Capacity: Describe the organization's experience in LACM is the Minnesota's only Lao HUD certified housing providing this service, staff capacity and staff counseling agency. LACM has been providing these services qualifications: since 2008. Two LACM staff are HUD certified Awards must be spent by June 30, 2016, and it is requested that funds be spent by April 1, 2016. When is the anticipated date to expend the funds? It is feasible that funds will be spent by April 2016. LFunding Sources - - Amount CDBG $5,000 Other federal - -- - $ State funding $ Local funding $ Corporate contributions - Wells Fargo (pending) Foundation contributions - National CAPACD Other (HECAT) [Other (Brooklyn Park CDBG- Pending) Consistency with Plans and Public Support: $5,000 $16,000; $7,500.00 Is this a high, medium, or low priority service according to the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan? *Appli ca ti ons will be reviewed and ranked based on the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan high priorities, use the 2010-2014 priorities as a reference. High LACM is a member of the National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (CAPACD) and Describe any multi-community, multi-agency or has received ongoing support and technical assistance in public/private partnership support: delivering HUD certified housing services. Describe how the activity meets a need not currently or adequately being addressed by No organization (other than LACM) has HUD certified and other services: Lao speaking housing counseling services Internal Revenue Service Date: March 5, 2004 Lao Assistance Center Of Minnesota 503 Irving Ave. N Ste. 100-A Minneapolis, MN 55405-1297 Department of the Treasury P. 0. Box 2508 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Person to Contact: Tracy Garrigus #31-07307 Customer Service Representative Toll Free Telephone Number: 8:00 am. to 6:30 p.m. EST 877-829-5500 Fax Number: 513-263-3756 Federal Identification Number: 36-3255880 Dear Sir or Madam: This is in response to your request of March 5, 2004, regarding your organization's tax-exempt status. In November 1983 we issued a determination letter that recognized your organization as exempt from federal income tax. Our records indicate that your organization is currently exempt under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Based on information subsequently submitted, we classified your organization as one that is not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because it is an organization described in sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). This classification was based on the assumption that your organization's operations would continue as stated in the application. If your organization's sources of support, or its character, method of operations, or purposes have changed, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on the exempt status and foundation status of your organization. Your organization is required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, only if its gross receipts each year are normally more than $25,000. If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of the organization's annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $20 a day, up to a maximum of $10,000, when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. All exempt organizations (unless specifically excluded) are liable for taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (social security taxes) on remuneration of $100 or more paid to each employee during a calendar year. Your organization is not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). Organizations that are not private foundations are not subject to the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, these organizations are not automatically exempt from other federal excise taxes. Donors may deduct contributions to your organization as provided in section 170 of the Code, Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers; or gifts to your organization or for its use are deductible for federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. CITY OFBROOW 10 ___ A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www.cityofbrooklynceflter.org Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds Spperneal Appkaia Due: Monday, Yanuary 20, 2016 by 4:30 PM Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: Youth Engaging Success (Yes, Inc) Program Name:Youth Success Coaching Purpose: To continue programming and collect data for 20 success plans and associated activities in the identified areas of homework help, civic involvement, college and career readiness, financial literacy and media projects. Arw .I 1.Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status? less2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program? 4.Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? 5. Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply) • Employment services LII• Crime Prevention and public services • Health Services El Eli• Substance abuse services D• Housing Counseling • Education programs D L• Energy Conservation • Services for senior citizens D• Services for homeless persons Page 1 of 9 PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1)Proposed program description. Be concise, yet thorough in describing the activity 20 of only the program for which funding is being sought, and in only as much detail as needed. CDBG funds cannot be used to replace current program funds. If this is an existing program and your organization did not receive Brooklyn Center CDBG funds last year. the funds must be used to expand the program or services. Yes, Inc's success coaching/life skills program is in place to move Brooklyn Center youth along a development pathway that starts with belonging and culminates in civic reinvestment. The program is a direct outgrowth of concerns expressed by local youth and parents; it leverages standing community resources and private volunteerism; and has been explicitly recognized as unique and effective by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, One-2-One, Youthprise, Bolder Options, The Sanneh Foundation, local schools and colleges, and the local community. Yes, Inc. provides youth with adult role models, connections, and resources to plan and execute a personal success plan for life, college and career. In this regard, we look toward exposing youth to decision-making and skill development competencies reinforced through on one success coaching. The over-arching takeaway for the youth involved in our program is that success is an ongoing process requiring steady effort building values, interests, skills, and knowledge. We create structured opportunity to acquire and apply these competencies. 2)Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. 20 Include information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and population to be served. Yes, Inc's Success Coaching/life skills project is in place to prepare Brooklyn Center youth from challenged backgrounds for life success that would move them along a development path that starts with belonging and culminates in generosity; defined as the ability and willingness to contribute to civic life. The program is a direct outgrowth of concerns expressed by local youth and parents; it leverages standing community resources and private volunteerism; and has been explicitly recognized as unique and effective by Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center's city leaderships, Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, One-2-One, Youthprise, Bolder Options, The Sanneh Foundation, local schools and colleges, and the local community. We do count on the Brooklyn Center city leadership to help expand this program. As a direct response to this community priority, Yes, Inc. launched a powerful innovation in social entrepreneurship: success coaching that pairs future-focused youth aged 15-20 with an accomplished adult coach in the community to execute, over multiple years, an individualized plan for that youth's life success. By coordinating these Success Plans, Yes, Inc. is in position to originate relevant engagement activities for young people; Page 2 of 9 capture important data on upward mobility efforts for local youth; promote youth achievement in challenged communities; and develop next-generation leadership reflective of the changing demographics in The Brooklyns. This innovation in local OST (Out of School Time) youth development is managed in part by youth participants themselves through activity production, advisory committees, and representation on the executive board. Short-Term Outcomes a.Increase in academic success of participating youth b.Increase in school and extracurricular participation of youth c.Increase in civic participation and engagement of youth d.Increase in youth perception of hope for the future and control of one's own destiny e. Increase in marketable career skills and experiences Long-Term Outcomes a.Increase in youth graduating high school b.Increase in youth pursuing post-secondary education to support career development c.Increase in scholarships awarded to youth d.Increase of reinvestment into local community by adult graduates of success coaching Community Impact a.Targeted scholarship and employment recruitment for success coaching graduates b.Increase in civic involvement of youth c.Greater intergenerational and intercultural collaboration d.Greater diversity in civic leadership Yes, Inc's objective is to deliver, through production of individualized success plans, a highly-vested model for recruiting, partnering, managing (including data capture) and delivery of services among community institutions serving or employing youth. This template is being developed from its current concept through collaboration with high- achieving youth development organizations already operating, or planning to operate, in "The Brooklyns," including Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Bolder Options, The Sanneh Foundation, One2One, and at least one private-sector area employer. 3) Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services 10 for which you are requesting funding? State the entities and briefly describe why your mm,-ram is unique in the service activityyou are proposing to fund. No other group focuses on Success Coaching to youth in the Brooklyns. This innovation involving positive youth social and emotional learning, that pairs youth with accomplished, "grown-up" influencers and, eventually, allowing them to become key influencers to their peers, is new. It presents diversity as a primary motivator that enables youth the maturity to take advantage of their mentee opportunity as a major development goal. We involve youth in creative, analytical and leadership roles though activity ideation and planning, program advisory groups, and membership on the Yes, Inc. executive board. This sparks ways for youth to engage and promote their community. Page 3 of 9 4)Do you plan to provide this service to other cities or jurisdictions? 10 5)If yes. will CDBG funds be used? NYes No Yes. Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park constitute the geographical focus of our effort. Last year this program was supported by a CDBG from Brooklyn Park and that application is being renewed. 6) Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor 20 the results. Regarding program evaluation, benchmarks, and evidence-based outcomes, youth will be part of the advisory and leadership, representing Yes, Inc. in the YPQA plan development being coordinated by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. This will provide information of active youth participation in leadership roles specific to program design and implementation, managerial skill development, and social and emotional development in day-to-day operations. This project is meant to help underrepresented youth gain the awareness, tools and connections to succeed in life; and provides a platform to put these skills to use in the community. Everything we do, including the governance, operation and programming of our organization, involves our youth participants. Lon—term strategies Yes, Inc. foresees several opportunities to sustain multi-year engagement with participants, including being absorbed into a larger youth development organization once we have proved the Success Plan concept; contract income from public-sector program partners; financial support from success coaches and their networks; possible fee-for- service income from participating families; leveraged philanthropic support from a core funder; and named scholarships from local post-secondary schools and employers recruiting for diversity in The Brooklyns. The Success Plan program as coordinated by Yes, Inc. and delivered by a range of partners, seeks to answer, in a specific community context (The Brooklyns) a BIG QUESTION: What is the value of one youth's success? That value will be calculated from a range of measurements including: • Self-assessment: participants, parents, coaches and staff • Success plan: participation in program activities/progress against stated goals • School: grades & extracurricular participation • Civic: participation and evaluation • Job/internship: performance reviews • Provider partners: case evaluations • Program comparisons: cost for outcome • College scholarships earned • Living-wage jobs attained • Long term: volunteerism/civic leadership, real reinvestment (business starts, homes purchased) Yes, Inc. will formalize program evaluations in two ways: Page 4 of 9 • Contracted technical assistance in the Success Plan design provided by allied youth development organizations • Participation in YPQA (Youth Program Quality Assurance) planning organized by a major youth development intermediary in our region, the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. We fully anticipate needed changes over time through analysis of new and relevant data; and to contribute our findings and understanding to the network of youth development organizations serving The Brooklyns, and to remain engaged with our youth participants at every level from daily operations to board-level strategy. 7) Please describe how your program meets one or more of the City's priorities listed 20 below. (Check all that apply) See attachment for more information about city priorities. Resident Economic Stability Targeted Redevelopment Enhanced Community Image Inclusive Community Engagement Strengthened and Empowered Youth [11 Key Infrastructure Investments U As a city whose growth has been generated largely by ethnically diverse residents including recent immigrants working their way up the economic ladder and members of historically underserved populations, Brooklyn Center has committed to engaging its next generation of citizens and leaders. Yes, Inc seeks CDBG funding to mature as a key partner to the city for direct youth engagement and the strategic coordination of community resources for youth development. The Success Plan program prepares Brooklyn Center youth from challenged backgrounds for life success. It demonstrates that the community not only offers resources to underserved youth, but is actively engaged in their upward mobility. Built into the program is experience with civic engagement and volunteering, so that program graduates are prepared not only to achieve individual success through higher education and the professions, but also to return the community's investment in them socially and economically. The success coaching program helps underrepresented youth gain the awareness, tools and connections to succeed in life; and provides a platform to put these skills to use in the community. Accordingly, youth participants played a central role in developing the success coaching logic model and rebranding Pro USA as Yes, Inc. (short for Youth Engaging Success) to communicate this focus. In May 2015 Yes, Inc. amended its bylaws to become a youth-led organization: "At least one member of the executive board shall be a leader of Yes, Inc., aged 15-20, who shall represent the Youth Leadership Council on the executive board." Currently, Yes, Inc.'s seven-member executive board includes three minor youth, the greatest proportional representation allowed under Minnesota statute 317A.205 (2014), which stipulates that minors must constitute a minority of the board membership. This early, individual impact among a handful of youth will grow through their Page 5 of 9 involvement in recruiting, activity development and coaching. With guidance from Yes, Inc. staff and adult success coaches, youth in The Brooklyns will achieve for themselves a much sought-after community impact including: • Greater engagement by youth in productive after-school-time activities o Increase in civic involvement by under-represented youth o Greater intergenerational and intercultural collaboration o Greater diversity in civic leadership o Innovation of an efficient, exportable model for economic and civic advancement among under resourced youth. 8)Please describe how this program is ready for implementation and what steps 20 would need to be taken before this program can be started. This program was initiated in 2015 supported in part by a CDBG award from Brooklyn Park. The 2015 effort focused on planning and was accomplished with extensive coordination with and support form Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. The 2016 effort focuses on implementation. This includes: o Launching continuous programming and collecting data for 30 Success Plans and associated activities in identified focus areas: homework help, civic involvement, college readiness, job readiness, financial literacy, sports and media. o Sustaining the Success Plan program through a combination of fee for service income, program partnerships, foundation grants and community fundraising. Time Frame: Starting January 1, 2016, Yes, Inc. will offer certain services daily, including homework help during the school year and transportation to and from activities. Interaction with success coaches will occur on a minimum weekly basis. We will offer year-round, monthly activities delivered by Yes, Inc., its youth participants, or partner organizations. Participants may engage at any age from 15-20 and participate until they age out. Community impact: Yes, Inc. worked strategically to define a clear need in our service area and match it with an unduplicated, endorsed and efficient solution. Integral to efficiency is a partnership model seeking to coordinate community services whenever possible to facilitate greater access by youth and maximize the value of investment in community-wide youth programming by foundations and other funders, PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 9)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you 10 have been able to meet the compliance requirements. (please provide a copy of previous annual and quarterly reports) 10) If you have been approved for federal/public funds previously, please state if you _______ Page 6 of 9 have an instance where you have not met the reimbursement requirements as a 17^=person or organization? Brooklyn Park CDBG recipient in 2015 for the subject program. MN Revenue grant recipient since 2010 for a free tax preparation program for households at or below 50% AMI. This program, which organizes volunteer preparers, serves hundreds of households annually and generated more than $400,000 annually in tax refunds returning to the local economy. All income (after expenses) from this tax preparation grant has been invested in Yes, Inc's youth-oriented programming. 11) If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and the accomplishments. Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications. N/A By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Applicants Signature: Title: Executive Director Date: Jan 20, 2016 Received by: 4 Date: I- Z. , Time:_________________ Page 7 of 9 CDBG Public Service Program Requirements City of Brooklyn Center Application Submittal Requirements Required Documents: 1.Completed and signed CDBG Supplemental Application 2.Copy of your Agency/Organization's 501(c)(3) letter 3. Completed Public Service Funding Application Submittal Requirements: • Incomplete or late applications will not be considered. • All applications that meet the minimum requirements will be ranked base on capacity, needs and funding priorities. • Preferred method of receiving the completed documents is a pdf sent by email to: Jandersonci.brooklyn-center.mn.us or mail, or hand deliver it to: City of Brooklyn Center, Building and Community Standards Department, Attn: Jesse Anderson, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Due date is by 4:30 PM January 20, 2016, CDBG Public Service Project Information Amount of FY2016 CDBG funds available: • Up to approximately $30,000 is available for social service organizations. Organizations typically are allocated between $7,500 and $15,000. A program receiving multi-city CDBG funding may be allocated an amount less than $7,500. The City may choose to not fund requesting public service agencies. Funding Priorities: • Program that support the city of Brooklyn Center Strategic Priorities • Programs supporting , evices to youth, diversity in the community, ot that leverage community resources. In addition eligible activities include, but are not limited to those relating to; family self- sufficiency, counseling, domestic abuse, seniors, affordable housing, job readiness and training. Program Requirements: • Activities must benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by FILJD and listed on the chart below. o Organization must have a 501 (c)(3) status. o Income-eligible certification must be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51% are from low- to moderate income households. o Organization must have the staff capacity to administer the program and be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement. Page 8 of 9 Timeline and Program Dates: January 20, 2016, by 4:30 PM, completed application due back to city hail. o February 8, 2016, 7:00 PM Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Meeting offers opportunity for short (3-5 minute) testimony from each applicant. After public hearing the Council members will make final decision for the allocation of CDBG funds. o July 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2017 spend down timeline of FY2016 funds. No reimbursements can be made for program activities spent prior to HUD final approval, most likely on or shortly after July 1, 2016. Funds will be reimbursed after program activities have taken place, expenses have been paid, and required documentation has been submitted. o June 30, 2017 Final Reimbursement January 1, 2017 - At least one reimbursement request must be submitted. Page 9 of 9 Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CD3G Program Year 2016 Please answer below in this column General Information: Organization: Youth Engaging Success (Yes,Inc) Type of entity: CDBG funding request: Use of CDBG funding (e.g. staff labor costs): Contact person: Phone/Email: Non Profit $10,00000 Staffs and Volunteers Stephen Wreh-Wilson 763-443-5914 swilson@yes -success.org Program Information: What is the program name/type of service? Youth Success Coaching Is this an existing CDBGfunded program? Yes. Start up process was supported by Brooklyn Park in 2015 Where is the program located, if applicable? The Brooklyns - Office is in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota What is the service area of this program? Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center Who is the target clientle? Disadvantaged and opportunity youths (aged 15-20) living, studying, or working in Brooklyn Center. Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDG Program Year 2016 What needs does this program address? Existing anti-crime, teen pregnancy and other mitigation programs are necessary but do little to address the achievement gap and lak of engagement opportunities fr local youth. Area cities, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are well aware that they must do more to engage underrepresented young people as a matter of demographic destiny. As a direct response to this community priority, Yes, Inc. launched a powerful innovation in social entrepreneurship: success coaching that pairs future-focused youth aged 15-20 with an accomplished adult coach to execute, over multiple years, an individualized plan for that youth's life success that includes college, career and community leadership. To further succeed in this endeavor, Yes, Inc is acquiring strategic consulting and technical assistance from Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. Is the need growing? Yes. The scarcity of proactive options for high achievers came to light in 18 months of group listening sessions, one-on-ones and other concerted outreach. As did a clear call to action: It's time to focus seriously on the asset side of local youth, especially in "program deserts" like The Brooklyns, and bring a fresh solution that the entire community can get behind. How does the program address these needs? The success coaching program helps underrepresented youth gain the awareness, tools and connections they need to succeed in life, and provides a platform to put these skills to use in the community. Accordingly, youth participants played a central role in conceiving the success coaching program and rebranding Pro USA as Yes, Inc. (short for Youth Engaging Success) to communicate this focus. In May 2015 Yes, Inc. amended its bylaws to become a youth led organization: currently the seven member executive board includes three minor youth, the greatest proportional representation allowed under Minnesota statute. With guidance from Yes, Inc. staff and adult success coaches, youth in The Brooklyns will achieve for themselves a much sought-after community impact including: - o Greater engagement by youth in productive afterschool time activities • Increase in civic involvement by under—represented youth - • Greater intergenerational and intercultural collaboration - • Greater diversity in civic leadership Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 ( How many persons were served by this program in the last 12 months? What is your goal for number of persons served July 2016 June 2017? What percentage of clients are (or are estimated to be) low and moderate-income persons? CDBG Staffing and Financial Capadty: - Describe the organization's experience in providing this service, staff capacity and staff qualifications: Since 2008 Pro USA has operated as an all-volunteer organization that has originated many different event-based interventions supporting youth in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park and which has earned recognition and recommendtions for their quality. Implementation of the Success Plan initiative will be the focus of 1.5 FTE professional staff including Executive Director Stephen Wreh-Wilson, an experienced program manager with a background in financial literacy, peace and justice, and employment advocacy. This capacity will enableYes Inc to recruit success coaches, manage their interactions with program participants, and coordinate partnerships with relevant youth services organizations. Awards must be spent by June 30, 2017, and it is requested that funds be spent by April 1, 2017. When is the anticipated date to expend the funds? CDBG $10,000.00 Other federal State funding $5,000.00 Local funding $10,000.00 Corporate contributions Foundation contributions $3,000.00 Other (specify)$26,547.27 Other (specify)$92,000.00 Consistency with Plans and Public Support: Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services) Urban Hennepin County CDUG Program Year 2016 Is this a high, medium, or low priority service according to the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan? *Applications will be reviewed and ranked based on the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan high priorities. Yes, Inc.'s partnering model strives to coordinate community services whenever possible to facilitate greater access by youth and maximize the value of social investment in youth programming by foundations and other funders. We are working on formalizing relationships that will lead Describe any multi-community, multi-agency or to exchanges of program support, technical assistance and other key public/private partnership support: resources. Describe how the activity meets a need not currently or adequately being addressed by other services: Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth This capacity-building intermediary serving "The Brooklyns" has provided advice and technical assistance to Yes, Inc.'s strategic planning. One2One A mentoring initiative active at North View Junior High in Brooklyn Park, One2One has developed a successful recruiting and certification program, resulting in successful interventions with students struggling in a school environment. One2One is ready to provide technical assistance and other collaboration with Yes, Inc. Minnesota International University MIL) and Yes, Inc. hosted a youth listening session in 2014 to frame the needs and aspirations of immigrant and minority youth in "The Brooklyns." North Hennepin Community College Interfacing through the Office of Service Learning at NHCC, Yes, Inc is arranging programming in college readiness, job preparation and community service for youth in "The Brooklyns." City of Brooklyn Park Public Service Application (family, youth and senior services)[I Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Year 2016 Staff of the city's Office of Community Engagement have attended Yes, Inc. events, and Yes, Inc. is contributing input to the city's Community Engagement Initiative. We hope this relationship will grow to encompass joint program planning and the city's funding of Yes, Inc. activities benefiting Brooklyn Park youth. Bolder Options Yes, Inc. is emulating the best practices of this very successful volunteer- based youth mentorship organization and, though partnership, will help Bolder Options widen its operations in the Northwest Metro communities. Yes, Inc. would receive technical and policy assistance for its own programming. The Sanneh Foundation This organization has provided a range of sports and academic outlets for at-risk youth in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Yes, Inc. is seeking to help TSF expand into the Northwest Metro. Planned Parenthood Yes, Inc. has begun planning a partnership that would have Planned Parenthood enrich Yes, Inc.'s programming, enabling youth to consider family issues not in isolation, but as part of an overall success plan. Our goal is to head off crises of unplanned pregnancy and broken families before they occur, thus sparing damage to and disadvantage for the current generation of youth and the next. ) Deparinient of the Treasury internal Revenue Service ATLANTA GA 39901-0001 In reply refer to: 0752839100 Aug. 12, 2015 LTR 4168C 0 26-2562417 000000 00 00032358 BUDC: TE YOUTH ENGAGING SUCCESS INC YES INC X STEPHEN WREN-WILSON 7420 UNITY AVE N STE 101 BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443-3136 Employer Identification Number: 26-2562417 Person to Contact: Customer Service Toll Free Telephone Number: 1-877-829-5500 Dear YOUTH ENGAGING SUCCESS INC YE: This is in response to your Aug. 03, 2015, request for information regarding your tax-exempt status. Our records indicate that you were recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in a determination letter issued in Jauary 2010. Our records also indicate that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are described in section(s) 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. Please refer to our website www.irs.gov/eo for information regarding filing requirements. Specifically, section 6033(j) of the Code provides that failure to file an annual information return for three consecutive years results in revocation of tax-exempt status as of the filing due date of the third return for organizations required to file. We will publish a list of organizations whose tax-exempt status was revoked under section 6033(j) of the Code on our website beginning in early 2011. 30092 0752839100 Aug. 12, 2015 LTR 4168C 0 26-2562417 000000 00 00032359 YOUTH ENGAGING SUCCESS INC YES INC Y. STEPHEN WREH-WILSON 7420 UNITY AVE N STE 101 BROOKLYN PARK FIN 55443-3136 If you have any questions, please call us at the telephone number shown in the heading of this letter. Sincerely yours, le-i- Teri H. Johnson Operations Manager, AM Ops. 3 I CITY ©iBOO A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Urban Hennepn County Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - FY2016 (July 1, 2016 thru June 30 9 2017) Application Request for City of Brooklyn Center Funds uppmn Application Due: Monday, Jry 20, 2016 by 4:30 Pft Public Hearing: February 8, 2016 YOU MUST COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN APPLICANT Organization Name: Brooklyn Center Timber Bay/Youth Investment Foundation Program Name: Supporting Students Through After School Hours Counseling and Activities Purpose:To create positive after-school and summer experiences that enrich, educate and empow e r teens at Brooklyn Center Secondary School. JjJI iii U IL 'T_RKLW1 1.Does your Organization have a 501 (c)(3) status?X 2.Do the activities benefit at least 51% low- and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD AND are you able to provide Income-eligible certification for all clients? x 3.Does your organization have the staff capacity to administer the program? 4.Do you understand and are capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement? x 5. Which of the following Eligible Public Service Activities will the program provide? (Choose All that apply) • Employment services x • Crime Prevention and public services o Health Services x • Substance abuse services x • Housing Counseling x • Education programs • Energy Conservation x • Services for senior citizens x o Services for homeless persons x Page 1 of 15 PROGRAM PROPOSAL 1) Proposed program description. Be concise, yet thorough in describing the activity 20 of only the program for which funding is being sought, and in only as much detail as needed. CDBG funds cannot be used to replace current program funds. If this is an existing program and your organization did not receive Brooklyn Center CDBG funds last year, the funds must be used to expand the program or services. The purpose of this grant appliration is to j ndgrammmg services provided by Brooklyn Center Timber Bay to students at Brooldyn Center Secondary School. Brooklyn Center Timber Bay (BCTB) is part of the larger organization of Youth Investment Foundation/Timber Bay, which was established in 1970. Timber Bay currently has branches in 14 communities in Minnesota. The premise behind all of Timber Bay's programs are that teens are facing new challenges and pressures every day including violence in schools, difficult choices around sex and substance use, missing or incarcerated parents, poverty, and other types of trauma. Parents are also facing new pressures. They may be unsure how to reach their teens. They may struggle with poverty, depression, unemployment, domestic violence and/or substance abuse. The population that Timber Bay serves often does not have access to services to address these issues due to a lack of community and/or financial resources. Brooklyn Center Timber Bay (BCTB) began in 2011 and serves middle and high school students in grades 6 to 12 at Brooklyn Center Secondary School. The programming provided by Brooklyn Center Timber Bay is research based and puts into practice the elements of two main researchers: Bonnie Bernard's "Fostering Resiliency in Kids" and Dr. Perter Benson and Search Institute's work with 40 Developmental Assets that youth need to succeed. The resiliency research identified the characteristics of resilient youth: social competence, problem solving, autonomy and a sense of purpose or hope for a bright future. This research further identifies "protective factors" that can alter or reverse negative outcomes for high risk youth are 1) caring and support, 2) high expectations and 3) youth participation and involvement. These protective factors can be provided in the school, the community and the family itself. BCTB, through their programming, increases these protective factors in the students who are most needy. According to Bernard's research, the critical components in fostering resiliency through direct service programming requires the establishment of mutual relationships of care, respect and trust between students and professionals. In doing this conditions are being created that allow youth to realize their innate Page 2 of 15 potential for social competence, problem solving, a sense of identity and hope for the future. All of the programming provided by Brooklyn Center Timber Bay utilizes the concepts of resiliency by providing programs that enhance "protective factors" in a young person's life by providing opportunities for receiving "caring and support", achieving "high expectations" and participating in activities in their school and community and establishing trusting and supportive relationships with the BCTB staff. In addition to resiliency research, Brooklyn Center Timber Bay also utilizes the research done by Dr. Peter Benson and Search Institute who identified 40 key developmental assets that youth need to be successful. These assets are divided into two areas: External Assets or those things in a young person's environment that will support nurture and empower them and Internal Assets or "attitudes, values, and competencies that belong in the head and heart of every child". The more assets a young person has, the less likely they are to engage in at-risk behaviors and the more likely they are to be successful in life. BCTB's programs promote asset development in youth by providing the external assets of support, empowerment, high expectations, and constructive use of time. The program also aids in developing the young persons' internal assets of commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies and a positive identity. At the heart of the Brooklyn Center's Timber Bay's program is creating positive after-school and summer experiences that enrich, educate, strengthen and empower teens through positive relationships with staff and with other youth in the program. The program uses a whole person approach, paying attention to all areas of a young person's life - physical, spiritual, social and emotional. The backbone of the program is mentoring the students throughout all components of the program. Mentoring can be defined as a developmental strategy in which a supportive individual works with youth to build relationships that offer encouragement, guidance, support and creating an opportunity for a youth's voice to be heard. Studies have shown that students who have had mentoring relationships get better grades in school, have better rates of high school completion, have more positive beliefs about their ability to succeed in school, have improved self-esteem and have greater acceptance by peers (National Mentoring Partnership, 2012). For the purposes of this grant application, we are requesting funding to enable Brooklyn Center Timber Bay to sustain and expand the number of program activities in which students can participate and to serve an increased number of students. The majority of activities described below take place during the school year at school during after school hours. Because of this and the fact that targeted students and parents often do not have enough food to Page 3 of 15 eat at home, food is provided for the parenting and student support groups. The specific components of BCTB's programming that will be provided to identified students in grades 6 through 12 at Brooklyn Center Secondary School consists of: 1)One-on-one Mentoring/Support: regular one-on-one mentoring is available to students who participate in the BCTB program and can also meet individually with staff when needs arise. 2)Student Support Groups: youth will discuss their concerns, be supported and learn problem solving skills from staff and their peers. 3)Parenting Support Groups: these groups are held in the evening and support parents who have lost hope and don't know how to help their teens. Parents are affirmed that they know their child best. When a parent who feels powerless is given an opportunity to show they know about their child, they regain confidence in themselves and in their parenting. When a parent can relate to their child they can better respond to and minimize their child's challenging behaviors. 4)Service Learning: volunteer projects for youth to build self-esteem, learn life skills and develop important work skills. 5)Large Group Gathering: teens gather weekly to learn about positive relationships, anger and forgiveness, decision-making, sexual restraint, life purpose, faith, self-worth, responsible living and more. This takes place in the evening hours from 6 to 8 p.m. BCTB has partnered with the Lutheran Church of the Master, who has provided a youth gathering place in a facility adjacent to the church. Students are picked up at the school and transported by BCTB staff and then transported home. This group provides opportunities for mentoring students and it is the goal of BCTB to recruit volunteer mentors to work with students in this group gathering. 6)Weekly Activities: these include Open Gym, outdoor sports, field trips and more. 7)Summer Programming: BCTB is a 12 month program with a variety of activities and mentoring that takes place in a variety of locations. This includes Outdoor Adventures where youth experience trips to the outdoors to teach life skills deepen relationships and build confidence. 8)Timber Bay Camp: While most of the work done with students and parents take place at Brooklyn Center Secondary School, outdoor camping activities take place on weekends and during the summer months. They are located at Timber Bay Camp, a private bay of Little Whitefish Lake north of the Twin Cities, and that has a lodge and additional cabins in which the campers stay. This part of the program offers students and parents who have often never had an opportunity for a camping experience, a weekend away from peer pressure, the intrusion of technology and life's hassles. Activities include hiking, volleyball, basketball, fishing, yard games, Frisbee golf and many more. These camps will take place five times during the year with between 20 to 50 students/parents attending each time. The budget request to expand the Brooklyn Center Timber Bay program is detailed below. Page 4 of 15 Transportation (for 4 vehicles that have been donated to BCTB) Gas, insurance, maintenance $2,400 ($200/month for 12 months) Subtotal Transportation $2,400 Supplies/Food Program equipment, supplies and $500 school supplies for students Food for parenting and student groups,$3,600 and after school student activities ($400/month during the school year —9 months) Subtotal Supplies/Food $4,100 Mentor Compensation $5,000 2 full-time and 2 part-time staff Contractual Outside evaluator to complete grant $2,500 reports, create program evaluation tools, compile and report evaluation results (50 hours @ $50/hour) Subtotal Contractual and Mentor $7,500 Compensation Other $7,000 Scholarships to camp and outdoor $5,000 activities Supplies/food for camp outings $1,000 Subtotal Other $6,000 - I Total Grant Request I 20,000 2) Describe the anticipated results and accomplishments for your proposed program. 20 Include information and statistics regarding Brooklyn Center local needs and nonulation to be served. The population served will be students in grades 6 through 12 from Brooklyn Center Secondary School. Brooklyn Center Schools is the only Full Service Community School District in Minnesota. "Full service schools aim to provide support to their individual communities. They survey their feeder neighborhoods to learn exactly what the needs are, then tailor their plans accordingly. The idea is to make schools the go-to places to find support for students, families and communities" (Star Tribune, January 5, 2016). This model was implemented in 2009. Brooklyn Center Secondary School serves a poverty stricken and culturally diverse student population of 900 students for the 20 15/16 school year. Some statistics from the 2014/15 school year that support this are: e 77% non-white o 77% Free and Reduced Lunch: Note as asked at the beginning of the annlication. we must be targeting low and moderate income households Page 5 of 15 according to HUD. The 2015 income considered "very low" for MN is an annual income of $30,950 for a 2 person household and $34,850 for 3 person household. To qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch a household of 3 must be at or below $37,167. Therefore, the majority of students at the school and being targeted by this grant application fit the required criteria. 22 % are English language Learners o Over 20% are Special Education students o The school has 29% mobility - students moving in and out of the district during the course of a year. The target population lives in the City of Brooklyn Center. The city is a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis, MN and is currently the third largest city in Northwest Hennepin County with a population of 30,712 (2013 Census Data). It also is the only first ring suburb whose population is made up of a greater percentage of non- white residents than white. This is also a community where many residents are living in poverty, experiencing unemployment and homelessness, mental health and substance abuse issues. Knowing that these needs are facing the youth of Brooklyn Center Secondary School and as part of the community school model, Brooklyn Center Timber Bay was brought in as a collaborating partner in 2011 for after school and summer programs to serve the students who are most at risk. The majority of students at Brooklyn Center Secondary School live in poverty or low income homes. Research has clearly demonstrated that living in poverty has a wide range of negative effects on the physical and mental health of students. Poverty often leads to a wide range of traumatic experiences including hunger, homelessness, unemployment, poor academic outcomes, dropping out of school, student mobility and increased crime rates (National Center for Trauma and Loss, 2013) These are the students who will be served through BCTB. The risk factors of the students being served include, but are not limited to being disconnected from school, lagging in academic achievement, being truant from school, experiencing substance abuse, lacking in positive role models, being involved in the justice system, being in an unstable home environment, and/or have experienced trauma. The expected results and accomplishments will come about as a result of the history of collaboration that has taken place between Brooklyn Center Timber Bay and Brooklyn Center Secondary School over the past four years. Over the years, this collaboration has led to increased services for students. However, the students in need of support continue to grow which is why BCTB needs funding to expand their services. One of the programs that the school and BCTB have collaborated on is called A2A (Athletics to Academics). This after school program provides tutoring two to three days a week to students with a C average or below. When they complete this tutoring they then get a pass to an Open Gym that is run by one Page 6 of 15 of BCTB's staff. Also, during the 2014/15 school year, 27% of the students that participated in the Timber Bay Youth Group increased their Math grade from Semester 1 to Semester 2 and 34% of students that participated in the Timber Bay Youth Group increased their English grade from Semester 1 to Semester 2. There is no substitute for time with a young person and BCTB staff invests countless hours helping youth navigate life through time spent with caring adults, especially during the after school hours when so many youth are on their own with little to do. This is often the time when youth who are high risk can get into personal or legal trouble. BCTB provides services so that youth can engage in healthy activities and reduce risky behaviors. Program staff will also connect family and youth to additional school and community resources as individual needs might indicate. Additional expected outcomes for student participation in Brooklyn Center Timber Bay include: • Increased academic motivation and achievement • Increase in the number of students being connected to school and the surrounding community • Increase in parents being connected to school and finding support and encouragement to help their children be successful • Improved parent/child relationships • Decreased crime rates during after school hours o Improved attendance o Decreased discipline issues for student participants • Increase in constructive use of time o Increased self-esteem and a sense of purpose for student participants • Increase in the number of youth who see themselves as valuable and who realize they can be a resource both to their school and community Increased positive view of personal future. To reiterate, activities provided by BCTB will benefit low and moderate-income households with less than 80% Area Median Income (AMI) as stated by HUD and by the school district's Free and Reduced Lunch documentation. Income-eligible certification will be provided for all clients served verifying that at least 51% are from low- to moderate income households. In addition, BCTB has the staff capacity as detailed in question 3, to administer the program and will be capable of providing all required documentation to obtain reimbursement through the main financial department of Youth Investment Foundation/Timber Bay. It is however, the goal of BCTB to increase their staff capacity to serve more students. Page 7 of 15 3) Do other entities provide Brooklyn Center residents the same, or similar, services 10 for which you are requesting funding? State the entities and briefly describe why your proaram is uniciue in the service activity you are proposing to fund. The City of Brooklyn Center, as previously stated, is a community whose citizens, including youth, are living in neighborhoods where they are experiencing the trauma of poverty, unemployment, mental health and substance abuse issues and crime. At the same time, this is a community that does not have significant resources to help those families seeking help. There are a few programs that provide counseling services for the issues stated above including Counseling Clinic, Inc., Healthwise Behavioral & Wellness, Canvas Health, and a variety of individual therapists. The services provided by these organizations generally specialize in psychological and psychiatric services, counseling and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Recently, Hennepin County opened its first regional office to provide human services at the Northwest Family Service Center in Brooklyn Center. Services include Child Support, food support, cash assistance, health care programs and emergency assistance. Partners in the building are: 1) Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) that has a food shelf, clothing closet and more and 2) Osseo Area Schools who provides K-12 enrollment in their schools and adult education services. Brooklyn Center Secondary School being a full service Community School does offer a variety of other services including health clinic, family resource room, college access center, recreation center and an out-of-school programs office. Parents can receive help paying energy bills, tips on writing resumes and legal assistance to help obtain U.S. citizenship. Brooklyn Center Timber Bay is a unique program whose mission is to provide life-changing services and a safe place for high risk youth and their parents. This is accomplished by providing the relevant programming previously described and one-to-one mentorship for youth with a caring adult. Teens will learn life skills that will reduce or eliminate risky choices like drug use, alcohol use, violence, acting out sexually, doing poorly in school or dropping out of school. BCTB has two fulitime staff and two part time staff implementing their programming. The collaborative approach with Brooklyn Center Secondary School allows BCTB to provide a variety of services to meet a variety of student needs. The students and parents don't have to worry about transportation or cost of services as all BCTB services that are provided in school and in the Brooklyn Center community are free of charge. BCTB has received three donated vans and one SUV to help transport students from activities to home and to the camping experience previously discussed. This camping experience is unique to any other program in Brooklyn Center. Students and parents have opportunities to engage in (often for the first and only time) the fun of camping experiences in a beautiful outdoor camping site complete Page 8 of 15 with a lodge and additional cabins. 4)Do you plan to provide this service to other cities or jurisdictions? 10 5)If yes, will CDBG funds be used? flYes LlxNo No - the services described in this grant application are only for students in the Brooklyn Center School District and who live in Brooklyn Center. 6) Please describe how you plan to record and report accomplishments and monitor 20 the results. Brooklyn Center Timber Bay is under the direction of Wayne Thyren, as Program Director. Wayne has a combined experience of more than 40 years of success working with at-risk teens and parents in urban and first ring suburbs of the Twin Cities. Wayne started as a high school teacher. His education includes Marriage and family Counseling, as well as his expertise with teens. Wayne will guide the operating of BCTB and will supervise the staff to ensure that all aspects of the program, including recording and reporting accomplishments and monitoring results of the various aspects of the program are completed as required. In addition, an outside consultant who has extensive experience in program evaluation will be contracted to assist in compiling the data, completing the reports and providing a neutral analysis of the program evaluation components. A year-end program evaluation report will then be written that will identify program strengths, outcomes achieved and areas for improvement. This report will be given to various stakeholders in this collaborative approach to working with the identified population. Some of these stakeholders include, but are not limited to, the Program Director, Timber Bay's parent organization, Brooklyn Center Secondary School's administrators, counselors and other building staff. There will be several components for tracking and reporting the accomplishments of the BCTB programs funded through this grant. A comprehensive evaluation plan will guide the recording and reporting of the accomplishments for BCTB' s programs at Brooklyn Center Secondary School. The evaluation plan will produce both qualitative and quantitative data with the main purpose being to determine whether the programs offered by BCTB are working as intended and also to tract and record if the intended students' outcomes have been achieved. This will then identify changes that might need to be made to various aspects of BCTB'S program. BCTB along with Brooklyn Center Secondary School has been documenting student progress since the collaboration began. This includes a "Time Station" App available on Smart Phones that BCTB and school staff use to track student attendance at BCTB programming, school attendance, grades, Free and Reduced Lunch, and more. Students who attend BCTB programs at school log in with their pin number, and their involvement is connected to all other school information in their student file. Page 9 of 15 The first focus of the evaluation will be the on-going process evaluation or formative evaluation. This will monitor operation of the activities, strategies, and methods used in the program. A brief intake form for the youth and their parent(s) to complete will allow Timber Bay to identify client issues that have brought them to the program To summarize this information a spreadsheet will be utilized to track student participants by grade, gender, reason for referral and observations of BCTB staff. In addition, students' school progress will be tracked to determine improvements in grades, attendance and behavior. The second focus in the evaluation will be outcome or summative evaluation to assess whether the expected outcomes have been achieved. The methods that will be used include a Student Asset Checklist that identifies what internal and external assets the student perceives they have will be completed when each student enters the program and at the end of the program. In addition an end of the year survey given to all students to assess how they see themselves and what knowledge and skills they have learned as part of the program. This part of the evaluation will be coordinated by the outside consultant to allow BCTB staff to spend the majority of their time serving students. The chart below shows how each of the outcomes will be monitored and evaluated. Increased academic motivation and Track grades for each student achievement participant Increase in the number of students End of year Student Surveys being connected to school and the Tracking participation in activities surrounding community such as Service Learning Increase in parents being connected to Parent survey for participants in parent school and finding support to help support group and other parent their children be successful activities Improved parent/child relationships End of year Student Surveys Decreased crime rates during after Crime rate statistics from city of school hours Brooklyn Center Improved attendance Track daily attendance for student participants Decreased discipline issues for student Track discipline contacts for student participants participants Increase in constructive use of time End of year Student Surveys Increased self-esteem and a sense of End of year Student Surveys purpose for student participant Increase in the number of youth who End of year Student Surveys see themselves as valuable to both to their school and community Increased positive view of future End of year Student Surveys Page 10 of 15 As previously stated, the program accomplishments and outcomes will be compiled and put into periodic and final reports by the outside consultant who BCTB will contract with. These reports will be given to all Timber Bay and Brooklyn Center Secondary School stakeholders. 7) Please describe how your program meets one or more of the City's priorities 20 listed below. (Check all that apply) See attachment for more information about city priorities. Resident Economic Stability tillTargeted Redevelopment - Enhanced Community Image Inclusive Community Engagement x Strengthened and Empowered Youth x Key Infrastructure Investments -El- Describe: Brooklyn Center Timber Bay's collaborative program with Brooklyn Center Secondary School supports two of the City's priorities: Inclusive Community Engagement and most of all Strengthened and Empowered Youth. Brooklyn Center Timber Bay's programming will provide effective and appropriate services to meet student needs. Through this collaborative approach with Brooklyn Center Secondary School, student and parent needs are not only clearly understood, but the students with the greatest needs are given special attention and through the one-to-one mentoring provided each student's needs are identified and addressed. The program engages the parents in the community in a responsive way to assist them in meeting their child's needs. As identified in Question 2, the identified population is mostly serving students from diverse backgrounds, as this is the majority of the student body at Brooklyn Center Secondary School. During the past school year, 95% of students served by BCTB were students of color. BCTB's staff has been trained in providing culturally sensitive programming to their program participants. In addition, Brooklyn Center Secondary School's staff assists in meeting the needs of parents who may not speak English by providing an interpreter as needed. Many of the parents in this community have experienced trauma due to poverty, homelessness, mental health and substance abuse issues and domestic abuse. Many of the families are immigrants and new to the ways of the American culture and the schools in our communities. The services provided by BCTB are responsive to the needs of their participants and if unable to meet their participants' needs they refer to other community resources that are able to assist the students/families. Strengthening and empowering youth is the heart of what BCTB does. The program uses a whole person approach, paying attention to all areas of a young person's life - physical, spiritual, social and emotional. Through the programming provided youth are provided opportunities to engage in service learning and enable them to be "seen as a valuable resource" with the abilities to contribute in a meaningful way. When engaging in these activities, youth are less Page 11 of 15 likely to engage in at-risk behaviors and experience violence. Students will also become more connected to their school and the community, as well as their families. Research has provided evidence that early intervention with high risk students will decrease problem behaviors at school, increase academic achievement, improve attendance and ultimately lead to higher graduation rates. The services provided are a coordinated system with the high school that provides research based programming that will help the youth become successful, contributing members of their communities. 8) Please describe how this program is ready for implementation and what steps 20 would need to be taken before this program can be started._____ Brooklyn Center Timber Bay will be ready for program implementation if funded through this grant. The program has been in operation for four years, so many improvements and enhancements have been made each year. The processes for collaborating with Brooklyn Center Secondary School have been created; group curricula and program content has been established, partnerships with the community have been created, staff has been trained and is prepared to go forward with this programming and many students in the school are aware of the staff and the programming that BCTB provides. However, through this grant application, the main goal will be the expansion of programming provided and increasing the number of students served. One of the most important needs for students at this time is one-to-one mentoring. As previously stated, a Large Group Gathering takes place for students on Tuesday evenings throughout the year in collaboration with a local church. One of the first steps that would be taken is to recruit and train community volunteers to work one-on-one with students during this time. In addition, a comprehensive curriculum needs to be developed for this weekly event. Also, program intake forms, surveys and a letter for the parents of student participants will need to be developed so the evaluation plan can be fully implemented and programming guided and improved through the feedback that is received. As described in other parts of this application, BCTB is for the most part ready to implement the programming described here. BCTB is serving a larger number of students and families each year; because of this our main goal is program expansion and enhancement to serve as many needy students and parents as possible. This includes adding a 211 Family Camp in the summer and a fall and a winter camp for teens. Also, numbers have been low in the Parenting Group so new ways to meet and recruit parents will be explored and implemented. In addition, BCTB will be seeking other grant funding in order to expand the number of staff that we currently have. This funding would supplement the income that the staff needs to raise to support themselves as Timber Bay employees. BCTB programs have a large Liberian population, therefore, it is our goal to recruit and help provide salary for a Liberian staff person. Page 12 of 15 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE 9)Please describe your experience administering federal/public funds and how you 10 have been able to meet the compliance requirements. (please provide a copy of previous annual and quarterly reports) 10)If you have been approved for federal/public funds previously, please state if you have an instance where you have not met the reimbursement requirements as a person or organization? Wayne Thyren, BCTB' s Director, was previously Director of another youth serving agency. During his many years in this role, the agency received many grants and the programming provided through these grants was successfully implemented. All required reports were completed and compliance requirements were met. The consultant that BCTB will contract with has an extensive history of writing, administering and reporting on funds received when previously employed by a local school district. With over 20 federal, state and foundation grants received by this consultant, all compliance requirements were accomplished. This included two on-site federal compliance audits and one state on-site compliance audit. This consultant never experienced an instance when all funding requirements were not met. Copies of previous annual and quarterly reports cannot be provided because of federal and agency/school district confidentiality requirements 11) If you have previously been funded through CDBG funds through Brooklyn 20 Center, please provide a breakdown of the services that have been provided to Brooklyn Center residents and the accomplishments. Please include demographic information, how many served, and associated expenses or other financial implications. Brooklyn Center Timber Bay has not been previously funded through CDBG By signing the statement below you are certifying your organization has the capacity to participate in the CDBG process and can provide the required documentation in the implementation schedule. I certify that all answers to the above questions are true and accurate. I understand that any false information on or omission of information from this supplemental application will be cause for rejection of this application or termination of funding. Applicant's Signature: / Title: Program Director Date:______ Received &/2=== Date: H Time:2°0 0 e'Page 13 of 15 CC CN U,U EL cu L. I.- cDa) 4.aO 00.. U 0 .1.. ; Cl) 'I -a 0.. LA> LA (A C -oLA LA LA0 LA (-a(A C0(-a E3 9- 0> o(- 0 E CLrL en C 2 > o 5a- (A >coN 0 0. LA N LA C NC > (A LA Na- :> -1I- (0 0.0(A (A LA 0 4._a EI-04- ci c,) 0• LA en. (0- en 0)a.- U CL en E 0U LA >LAcr( 2a) .50 I- a) LA SU (A C a)LA S CU 0a) 0 — E 0 0tobeC C LA LACL LA > 0(A 0. 0 enbe >C CoE LA EE0 (.LA 0 to LA ESEo(-3 (ACen->2 (A 5 LA 0 LA LA 2C --o LA S C 8 -0.(A(AC LA . LA 4--C LA o o 4-en >0 -C C UC)LA (A (A 2 cl((- S E LA en s- _C 12 u en D1500)D C t 0 2 C 5 C LA(-0 C LA LA LAE LA C 0 0 >((3--a C LA LA - 5 LA (A 0C o LI) a-a--'-be 0 >>-I IH diiii2 C'.U'a a) LA 0Ua—aUo Ca 0(304- 0 0)E 4_ae.. (A Ca- IU E ECA = CU0. 2 • 0 0. CL LALA -0-c w 4_a E9- (A0 0(aT 0 ca(.0 - (1) - a.. en Ea0 (U a) -U 20. 0) Un 0LA -. LA 4_' LALA 4-a • - CA .0• 4-a a) CD 0 (A_c • -= .0 (ACa. a-(A ' LA- C Co N EE - 4- - Ln LA - 0) °N-.E •0C U)(A a) 4-aCa. 0 LA 0 LA(A4- a) LA - (1).0ECA LAEu Ca0 a--C an '-2 o CU LAr'.tw0 oj UC0 . awC E(A oC C 'a 2 2 ---i -ii IroCo-.--- U u •flUU •r r r aj - (D<C _. T (D Dl C' (D o ?Dl 0 <(D Dl (D—<ID -(D at. r I ..ID FL 2ID0 ot4 N ;.=9 0 (II O 0 rL a fD D . D-crjD - rr 0 -'-rIID ID0' DlaID0r'.J (-<Dl__rL (D -- {!t11f I-o o UD I)U ID IDIII II 0oo0-tI -' Di -t 0 - ID fl ID E (DID CD ID - Di R ii 0 --.cl 0 ID 6(.1 (I)ID ClIDDi DiUS Di - (Ii-S It, 0:1-00 it, UQ 0 00ID Di 0 ID 0 001)101 0 ^ 0000 0)ci oboo 0 I I I –j —1 0000 0 -- G HiL4 '---2 ;.HHflD--0 <0.0.CD P CD ID CD -6=CD CD -u 0- -m C/I CD =0 G -.,CD -<--I11IF CL CL - _'CDO cr a.-0-0 rr0 CD%DJCD In0 CD CD -0aq CC -' 0 CD - CC CD -Q 0 CD DC C)CI CD 0 0.2 -"3-a CD 0)CD 5- cr CL ICLrD to 03 03 0 a)° 0 -'-'C'o o (C CD 0 0 in . C' x ><.-.-.C'-CD 0 ID ,-73 CD -0 2•1'oO(D D W on073 73 03 8 -3 0 -C -<2oIna2.0-DI ç,0-'C) In 0 CC 03 LnDIC)Ln 2.CIC)CC CD --CD 0-00 0 In -'0 2.Q - CL IDrD I T. 73 FD'CLao —Lo I i i. -;ko m m-3 0 _ CD .0 0 tfl (/C -CL _- CDCC' CL 2. m (C (C (C -if- 0 a:s g a a CD 0..CD3<(r C .CD(C -<C -5. 0 3 C 0 CD D -o CD (C'I))CD CD . O DC .F CD rL Of fo g •0 (C '0 0ml CD--C,00 CD CD DD o • a o (DC IDmCL M CD (C DC 0NJ CD (DC - CD 0-CD 00 (5 (C0' CD (DC 0 NJ0 CD -< CD C1( C,.--g z -(IC-111-(IC V)- --V)--—'It1)- '- o o CD (DO 0 D 0 ID- o -'--r)CD =M. Ii ;•((C CD O_-0 0rDCD ((C'-5:)_0 C' CD r) D uo CD -<-<I CD 0 O Ln ,'-D DC)0 0 ' O 0-DC)O I-a) 0 CD (D(D CD CD C-C NJ -NJC) us .0 -'-5 co M <:r CDC0CD-'-C CD C CL CDCC,Ef-U) C-, CD - .5) CD C-, 00 CD (CD 0 (CD C0CD CD :30 ((C NJNJ0CCCI NJ0 OQUSO 000000P0PPPoboc000000 Youth Investment/Timber Bay Central Services P0 Box 316 11364 Hamel Rc Medina, MN 55340-0316 MENTORS FOR LIFE 763.478.0500 ph 763.478.0501 fax TimberBay.org 148-2016 To whom it may concern, Attached is our Block Grant application & also a letter of reference from the Brooklyn Center School District Superintendent. After directing programs for youth & parents in Brooklyn Park with two different, but similar organizations called TreeHouse & Timber Bay for nearly 35 years, I decided to leave Brooklyn Park & open a new branch of Timber Bay in Brooklyn Center the fall of 2011. During my years in Brooklyn Park, we were pleased to receive several CDBG grants for our programs & am hoping what we do will be seen as an asset to our community & be worthy of your support from CDBG funds. Being a part of Brooklyn Center & working closely with our school has been a true joy. I look forward to meeting you & working together on behalf of our teens & their parents. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me 612 720-2896 or at wayne©timberbay.org . Sincerely, Wayne Thyren BC Timber Bay Director BROOKLYN CENTERC'rnmty uiiiinP cOrr1tr1ul1lteSIirniiiOtIi1 barr;e;S Brooklyn Center SchoosDistrict 286 - - March 23, 2015 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter of support for Timber Bay who currently offers programming for our middle and high school students through mentoring, community outreach, camps and retreats. Timber Bay has been offering services to Brooklyn Center teens and parents for three years. Brooklyn Center Community Schools serves a very high percentage of students in poverty. Timber Bay serves these students and families that have the least ability to pay for the programming that is offered. Funding support for the Timber Bay Program will provide students and families with transportation and scholarships to participate. For the last three years, Timber Bay has run teen support groups, parent support groups, mentoring, open gym, as well as activities and weekend experiences at Timber Bay Camp. During the summer, these opportunities and experiences are expanded for students and families. I endorse and support Timber Bay with no reservations. Your support for the program will provide opportunities for students and families to grow as part of our community. Please contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, Mark Bo nine Superintendent, Brooklyn Center Community Schools Brooklyn Center School District - ISD 286 6500 Humboldt Ave. N, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Phone: (763) 450-3386 Fax: (763) 560-2647 www.brookcntr.kl2.mn.us Presented by: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director/HRA Specialist City Council Meeting February 22, 2016 Council Consider Resolution with CDBG Allocations At February 8, 2016, City Council Meeting: ◦Public Hearing Held to obtain feedback from citizens and applicants for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds ◦Council approved a motion with a recommendation to staff to prepare a resolution. Documents Submitted To Hennepin County By February 26, 2016 Deadline Funding Available For Use Starting July 1, 2016 02/22/2016 City Council Meeting 2 02/22/2016 City Council Meeting 3 CDBG Activity Requested Amount Council Requested Public Services ($38,817 Max) H.O.M.E. Program (Senior Community Services) $10,000 $7,829 Meals on Wheels (CEAP) $15,000 $7,829 Tenant Advocacy Program (HOME Line) $8,122 $7,829 Brooklyn Avenues (Avenues for Homeless Youth) $10,000 $7,829 Food and Nutrition Services (CAPI-USA) $3,684 $0 Housing Counseling Services (Lao-Assistance Center of MN) $5,000 $0 Youth Success Coaching (Yes, Inc) $10,000 $0 Student after School Counseling and Activities (Brooklyn Center Timber bay/Youth Investment Foundation) $20,000 $7,500 Total Public Services $81,806 ($42,990 Over 15% allowed) $38,816 Non-Public Services City of Brooklyn Center Neighborhood Stabilization/ Code Enforcement $150,000 $150,000 Home Rehabilitation Program $69,963 $69,963 Total CDBG Funds $301,769 ($42,990 Over Budget) $258,779 The resolution authorizes signature of a Sub- recipient Agreement. It authorizes any third party agreements that would be executed between the City and third party vendors such as any public service providers. These agreements are standardized agreements developed by Hennepin County. 02/22/2016 City Council Meeting 4 02/22/2016 City Council Meeting 5 City Council Agenda Item No. 8a COUNCIL ITEMMEMOR AN D UMk'A II] 1$ ti$IA] DATE: February 17, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: An Interim Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City R e commendation: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, take public input, close the Public Hearing, and consider adoption of An Interim Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City. Background: At its January 25, 2016, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of An Interim Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City. Attached are the materials provided at the January 25, 2016, meeting. The second reading and Public Hearing are scheduled for February 22, 2016. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post newspaper on February 4, 2016. If adopted, effective date will be April 2, 2016. i'Jission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sqfe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on the 22'' day of February, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance related to the adoption of an extension to an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of new rental licenses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON THE LICENSING AND OPERATION OF NEW RENTAL DWELLING UNITS AND IMPOSING TEMPORARY REGULATIONS ON THE RESIDENCY LOCATION OF PREDATORY OFFENDERS WITHIN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative Findings. 1.01 On November 23, 2015 the City of Brooklyn Center ("City"), adopted Interim Ordinance No. 2015-13 ("Interim Ordinance") which established a moratorium on the licensing and operation of new rental dwelling units and imposed temporary regulation on the residency location of predatory offenders within the City; 1.02 The Interim Ordinance went into effect on January 2, 2016; 1.03 The purpose of the interim ordinance was to allow the City time to study the issues of rental dwellings within the City and to study the effects of predatory offenders living within the City; 1.04 The Interim Ordinance had an initial period of 120 days and is set to expire on March 22, 2016; 1.05 Despite its best efforts, the City has been unable to satisfactorily study the issues of rental housing and predatory offenders within the time originally provided iii the Interim Ordinance and requires additional time to study the issues and draft appropriate permanent ordinances; and 1.06 In order to complete its work and give its full consideration to these matters before acting on permanent ordinances, the City Council determines it is in the best interests of the public to extend the period of the interim ordinance by an additional 60 days. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. Extension of Moratorium. 2.01 The moratoriums established in the Interim Ordinance, including all of the terms, conditions, and restrictions contained therein, are hereby extended for an additional 60 days until May 21, 2016. All provisions of the Interim Ordinance shall continue and remain in effect as though the time period originally established for the Interim Ordinance extended until May 21, 2016. Section 3. Effective Date and Repeal. 3.01 This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. 3.02 Once this Ordinance is in effect, the resolution adopted by the City Council on January 25, 2016, regarding the same matters shall be deemed repealed. 3.03 This Ordinance is transitory in nature and shall not be codified into the City's Code of Ordinances. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor ATTEST:City Clerk Date of Publication: M arch ,iO 16 Effective Date: _April 2, 2016 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION City of Brooklyn Center STATE OF MINNESOTA )(Official Publication) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTERssCOUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on the Sharon Gruhi being duly sworn on an oath,22nd day of February, 2016, at 7:00 states or affirms that he/she is the Publisher's p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall,Designated Agent of the newspaper(s) known 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to as:consider an ordinance related to the adoption of an extension to an SP Brooklyn Ctr/Brooklyn Park interim ordinance prohibiting the is- suance of new rental licenses. Auxiliary aids for handicapped with the known office of issue being located persons are available upon request in the county of:at least 96 hours in advance. Please HENNEPIN notify the City Clerk at 763-569- 3306 to make arrangements.with additional circulation in the counties of:ORDINANCE NO.________ HENNEPIN AN INTERIM ORDINANCE and has full knowledge of the facts stated B(TENDING A MORATORIUM ON below:THE LICENSING AND OPERATION OF NEW RENTAL DWELLING(A)The newspaper has complied with all of UNITS AND IMPOSING the requirements constituting qualifica-TEMPORARY REGULATIONS ON tion as a qualified newspaper as provided THE RESIDENCY LOCATION by Minn. Stat. §331A.02.OF PREDATORY OFFENDERS WITHIN THE CITY(B)This Public Notice was printed and pub-THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE lished in said newspaper(s) once each CITY OF BROOKLN CENTER DOES week, for I successive week(s); the first ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative Findings.insertion being on 02/04/2016 and the last 1.01 On November 23, 2015 theinsertion being on 02/04/2016.City of Brooklyn Center (City), ad- opted Interim Ordinance No. 2015- MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES 13 (Interim Ordinance") whichestablished a moratorium on the Ii- Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 censing and operation of new rental relating to the publication of mortgage -dwelling units and imposed tempo - foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies rary regulation on the residency lo- with the conditions described in §580.033,cation of predatory offenders within the City;subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's 1.02 The Interim Ordinance wentknown office of issue is located in a county into effect on January 2, 2016; adjoining the county where the mortgaged 1.03 The purpose of the interim premises or some part of the mortgaged ordinance was to allow the City time to study the issues of rental dwell- premises described in the notice are located,ings within the City and to study the a substantial portion of the newspaper's effects of predatory offenders living circulation is in the latter county.within the City; 1.04 The Interim Ordinance had an initial period of 120 days and is set to expire on March 22, 2016; By:,<;2^ 14 09_t^L 1.05 Despite its best efforts, the ity has been unable to satisfacto- rily study the issues of rental hous-Designated Agent ing and predatory offenders within Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before the time originally provided in the me on 02/04/2016 by Sharon Gruhl.Interim Ordinance and requires ad- ditional time to study the issues and draft appropriate permanent ordI- nances; and 1.06 In order to complete itsk'\ J\.work and give its full consideration to these matters before acting on Notary Public permanent ordinances, the City Council determines it is in the best interests of the public to extend the period of the interim ordinance by an additional 60 days. Ing AIAAAWAdA/VV'1VVv\'VvVV/VIMARIE MACPHERSON Section 2. Extension of Morato-riun. rENotary Public-Minnesota 2.01 The moratoriums estab- My CommissionExpires Jan 31, 2019 lished in the Interim Ordinance, in- eluding all of the terms, conditions, and restrictions contained therein, are hereby extended for an addi- tional 60 days until May 21, 2016. All provisions of the Interim Ordi- nance shall continue and remainin effect as though the time period Rate Information:originally established for the Interim (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users Ordinance extended until May 21, for comparable space:2016. Section 3. Effective Date and$46.90 per column inch Bspmi. 3.01 This Ordinance shall be- Ad ID 503316 come effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. 3.02 Once this Ordinance is in effect, the resolution adopted by the City Council on January 25, 2016, regarding the same matters shall be deemed repealed. 3.03 This Ordinance is transitory in nature and shall not be codified into the City's Code of Ordinances. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor AUEST____________ City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: 2/4/16, 3SP1, PHN Extending Moratorium, 503316 S[I1IJ[iJ I U I MY4 U I DI'A 0) 1II )1SIkI DATE: January 21, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag SUBJECT: Resolution and Interim Ordinance extending a moratorium on new rental dwellings and regulating location of predatory offenders within the City of Brooklyn Center Recommendation: Itis recommended the City Council consider the following: 1.Adopt a resolution extending a moratorium on new rental dwellings and regulating the residency location on predatory offenders with the City. 2.Approve first reading and set public hearing on an interim ordinance extending a moratorium on the licensing and operation of new rental dwelling units and imposing temporary regulations on the residency location of predatory offenders within the City. Background: On October 26, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing a moratorium on the licensing and operation of new rental dwelling units and imposing temporary regulation on residency location of predatory offenders within the City. On November 23, 2015, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 2015-13 and a resolution establishing a moratorium on the licensing and operation of new rental dwelling units and imposing temporary regulation on residency location of predatory offenders within the City. The Interim ordinance went into effect on January 2, 2016. The interim ordinance was effective for 120 days and will expire on March 22, 2016. The purpose of the moratorium was to provide staff with time to study the issues related to each of the two concerns. During this time staff has conducted interviews, met with stakeholders, analyzed effectiveness in other communities, and analyzed impacts in Brooklyn Center. We are very near the completion of our review for both areas of concern. Within the next few weeks we will' complete our draft and final ordinance proposal. Even if a new ordinance was adopted on January 25, 2016, the interim ordinance will expire before the new ordinance could take effect on April 2, 2016. To provide sufficient time to complete our study and avoid any lapse in the moratorium or the interim predatory offender regulations, we are requesting a 60 day extension. This will provide adequate time to present our findings and recommendations to you for consideration Budget Issues: This action will not affect the adopted City Budget Strategic Priorities: Community Image 111sio,z: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of l/e for all people and preserves the public trust Member Dan Ryan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. iO16i7.- RESOLUTION EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON NEW RENTAL DWELLINGS AND REGULATING THE RESIDENCY LOCATION OF PREDATORY OFFENDERS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center ("City"), pursuant to Chapter 12 of the City Code, requires a license for any person to operate a rental dwelling within the City; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the rental dwelling license requirement is to ensure rental housing in the City is decent, safe and sanitary and is so operated and maintained as to not to become a nuisance to the neighborhood or to become an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive to reinvestment in the community; and " WHEREAS, repeat predatory offenders present a significant threat to the public safety of the community as a whole, especially children, females, and vulnerable populations. Predatory offenders are likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses, and most predatory offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. The cost of predatory offender victimization to society at large, while not precisely calculable, is steep; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that a disproportionately high number of predatory offenders are being placed in the City and it is in the best interest of the public to study and consider options for addressing and minimizing the public safety impacts of such placements; WHEREAS, the rental dwelling license requirement in the City Code was adopted under the City's police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City may amend and enact ordinances and regulations under its police powers as it sees fit, including through the adoption of moratoria and temporary regulations enacted to allow the City sufficient time to prepare and adopt permanent regulations; and WHEREAS, the City further has the authority, under Minnesota Statutes, section 462.355, subdivision 4 to enact an interim ordinance placing a moratorium on ordinances that control the physical development of the City including site plan regulations, sanitary codes, and building codes; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently limit the number of rental dwelling licenses it can issue; and RESOLUTIONNO.2016-17 WHEREAS, the City has a compelling interest in promoting, protecting and improving health, safety, and general welfare of the City's citizens; and WHEREAS, the City acted by resolution and ordinance to impose a moratorium on the issuance of new rental licenses and limiting the residence location of predatory offenders in order to allow time to study and evaluate the need to limit the number of rental dwelling licenses issued within a defined area and to prohibit certain predatory offenders from establishing temporary or permanent residence in certain locations where children are known to regularly congregate in a concentrated number; and WHEREAS, the interim ordinance (Ordinance No. 2015-13) ("Interim Ordinance") the City Council adopted on November 23, 2015 is set to expire on March 22, 2016; WHEREAS, despite its best efforts, the City has been unable to satisfactorily • study the issues and draft permanent ordinances regarding - rental housing and predatory offenders within the original timeframe of the Interim Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City requires additional time to study the issues and to draft and adopt appropriate permanent ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Council has under consideration an ordinance to extend the period of the Interim Oridnance by an additional 60 days to allow the City time to adequately study the issues and draft and adopt permanent ordinances on these subjects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Definitions. The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this Resolution, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1.01 "Child" means any person under the age of eighteen (18). 1.02 "Designated predatory offender" means any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes, section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in which that person's risk assessment indicates a high risk of re- offense. 1.03 "Permanent residence" means a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. 1.04 "Temporary residence" means a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges, or resides for a period of four or RESOLUTIONNO.2016-17 more consecutive or non-consecutive days in any month and which is not the person's permanent residence. 1.05 "School" means a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school. 1.06 "Licensed child care center" means a group child care center currently licensed by the applicable County or State of Minnesota. 1.07 "Public playground" means a publicly-owned, improved park or other outdoor area designed, equipped, and set aside primarily for children's play. Section 2. Moratorium on Rental Licenses. 2.01 To protect its residents and the potential harm that may come from an unlimited number of rental dwelling licenses within the City, the City Council hereby exercises its authority under its police powers to place a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for new rental licenses. The moratorium mandates that no applications for rental licenses will be accepted for new rental housing licenses for any dwelling structure or dwelling unit for a single family and single family attached home as defined in the City Code Section 12-201. During the period of this moratorium, no new rental dwelling licenses shall be issued for any dwelling structure or dwelling unit for a single family and single family attached home. Furthermore, no building permits for the expansion or enlargement of a single family or single family attached home to increase the number of dwelling units will be issued. For purposes of this Resolution, rental dwelling shall have the meaning given in City Code Section 12-201 (26). 2.02 New rental license applications received prior to the adoption of this Resolution will be processed for licensure. Those holding current rental dwelling unit licenses may continue to operate under their current license and may renew their license in a manner consistent with the City's current regulations on rental dwelling licenses. 2.03 The prohibitions imposed by this moratorium do not apply to applications for a new rental license for a dwelling unit that qualifies for relative homestead under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.124, subdivision 1(c). 2.04 The moratorium imposed by this Section shall be in effect until May 21, 2016 from the date of its adoption, until the final adoption of an amendment to the City's rental dwelling unit license provisions within the City Code, or upon its express repeal by the City Council, whichever occurs first. RESOLUTIONNO. 2016-17 Section 3. Temporary Regulations on Predatory Offenders.. 3.01 It shall be unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, licensed child-care facility, public playground, or any other place where children are commonly known to regularly congregate. 3.02 For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation required by this Section, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the designated predatory offender to the nearest outer property . line of the protected property. 3.03 A designated predatory offender residing within a prohibited area as described in this Section does not commit a violation of this Resolution if any of the following apply: A.The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant t Minnesota Statutes, sections 243.166 and 243.167 or a successor statute, prior to October 26, 2015; B.The person was a minor when he or she committed the offense and - was convicted as an adult; C.The person is a minor; D.The school, licensed child care center, or public playground within 2,000 feet of the person's permanent residence was opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 243.166 and 243.167, ora successor statute; B. The residence is also, as of October 26, 2Q15, the primary residence of the person's parents, grandparents, siblings, or spouse; or F. The residence is a property purchased, leased, or contracted with and licensed by the Minnesota Department of Corrections prior to October 26, 2015. 3.04 The regulations imposed by this Section shall be in effect, until May 21, 2016, until the final adoption of an amendment to the City's Code regarding the residency location of predatory offenders, or upon its express repeal by the City Council, whichever occurs first. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-17. Section 4. Enforcement. - 4,01 A violation of this Resolution shall be a misdemeanor. In addition, the City may enforce this Resolution by mandamus, injunction, other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction, or through the City's administrative penalties program under Chapter 18 of the City Code. I Section 5. Study of Issues. 5.01 City staff is directed to continue studying the impacts of rental dwellings within the City and determine if limits to licensing of such dwellings, including their density, will further the goals of the current rental dwelling regulations. Staff is further directed to draft amendments to the current rental dwelling unit ordinance as may be necessary to further its stated goals for consideration by the City COuncil. 5.02 City staff is further directed to continue studying the impacts of the residency of predatory offenders within the City and determine if further or different limits to residency restrictions for such offenders will further protect the needs of the public. Staff is further directed to draft amendments to the current city code as may be necessary to further the goals expressed above for consideration by the City Council. Section 6. Effective Date. 6.01 This Resolution shall become effective on March 22, 2016, so the moratoria and restrictions imposed by the City Council in the Interim Ordinance remain in effect uninterupted until May 21, 2016. January 25, 2016 Date ATTEST: )PIIJIM )4YWdU City Clerk 1L ____IV Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lin Myszkowski. and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof, Ttth Willson, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, Dan Ryan and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 9a EIIJJhXSJI NII(I)il)1SJh'AI DATE: February 22, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitèl, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002, Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools - ISD No. 281 Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval for New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002, Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools - ISD No. 281 Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval for New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Background: On February 11, 2016, the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 2016-002, submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools for Site and Building Plan approval of a new classroom and entryway addition to their existing Northport Elementary School facility. The addition is designed to serve as a new 32' x 32' resource space for the students, along with a 20' x 32' entryway area with an internal handicap accessibility ramp. The site plan item was presented to the Commission without a public hearing; however, notice letters were mailed to neighboring residents within 150-feet of the school. There were no written comments for or against this item; nor any public comments recorded at the meeting. The February 11th planning report, along with the city engineers report and the accompanying site plans are attached for City Council consideration. Also attached is a copy of the adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-02, which provides a favorable (and unanimous) recommendation of the proposed Site and Building Plan request. Excerpt minutes from the February 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting are attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: • Targeted Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive comnuinity 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 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-002 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS - ISD NO. 281 REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR NEW CLASSROOM AND ENTRY ADDITION TO NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002 was submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools-ISD No. 281 ("Developer") requesting approval of a new Site Plan to construct a New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard (the "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on February 11, 2016 to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002, and reviewed and received a planning report and city engineer's report on the proposed new Site and Building Plan for the proposed Northport Elementary School classroom and entry addition to the school facility; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council, that the Site and Building Plan for the classroom and entryway addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard, and as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2016-002, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; B.The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the Site and Building Plan of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; C. The Site Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; D. The Site Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the RESOLUTION NO. community; and E. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. AND WHEREAS, upon acceptance of all public comments and discussion of this item, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-02, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that this Site and Building Plan of the new classroom and entryway addition on the Subject Site may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Planning Application No. 2016-002, submitted by the Developer requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan to construct a new classroom and entryway addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 2.All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarantee. February 22, 2016 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: RESOLUTION NO. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Cii f iiiL?ROOKL I EVTH? Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: February 11, 2016 • Application Filed: 01/15/16 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 03/14/16 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2016-002 Applicant: ISD No. 281 (Robbinsdale Area Schools) Location: 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site & Building Plan of a New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School INTRODUCTION Wold Architects & Engineers, on behalf of ISD No. 281. (Robbinsdale Area Schools) is requesting consideration of a Site and Building Plan of a new classroom addition and entryway for Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. This item is being presented as a general Planning Commission review item; without official public hearing. Planning staff mailed notice letters of this meeting to all property owners within 150-feet of the school property. The Commission may elect to allow public comments if any homeowners or members of the public wish to be heard on this matter. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: Schools Current Zoning: R-1 One Family Residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1 One Family Residence (Northport Park) East: Brooklyn Blvd. / R-1 One Family Residence South: R-1 One Family Residence/C-1 Service/Office West: R-1 One Family Residence Site Area: 13.65 acres Setback Standards: Building: Front Yard = 35-ft.; Rear Yard 25-ft.; Side Yard (Interior) = 10 ft.; and Corner Side-Yard = 25-ft. Parking: 15-ft. from any street right-of-way line Request Conforms to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes Subdivision Ord.: Yes Sign Ord.: (No signs planned or under consideration at this time). Variance Needed for Req uest: No Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 02/11/16 Page 1 BACKGROUND Northport Elementary was constructed in 1960, and is currently operated by the Robbinsdale Area Schools (ISD No. 281) as a kindergarten through 5th grade school. The school has an enrollment of 550-600 students, with 90-100 teachers and support staff. The school is located in an RI (One Family Residence) zoning district; and is surrounded by Northport Park to the north; and single family uses to the east, south and west. In 2014, ISD 281 wrapped up an $18 million, five-year phased redevelopment remodeling and building improvement plans for Northport. Most of these improvements included major interior remodeling of classrooms and office areas; small building additions; mechanical upgrades; and the re-design/reconstruction of the main front parking areas and a new bus drop-off and overflow parking lot to the north of the school. This purpose of this report is to provide a brief analysis (both planning and engineering) of this small classroom addition, along with staff findings and recommendations on this site development plan. + Scope of Improvements The plans call for a small 32' x 32', single story classroom addition off the southeast wing of the school building (see image below). The work also includes a 32' x 20' entryway, which includes a double-door vestibule area, leading to a set of 3 stairs, and an ADA compliant ramped surface. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 02/11/16 Page 2 ©MAN L./EL. FOS .&M-A.!) W1 w • t-c- There will be a minimal loss of playground space due to this addition; and no playground equipment will be required to be moved or relocated. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 02/11/16 Page 3 • Access & Traffic All access for the school will remain in place, with no new access points planned from the neighboring Sailor Lane or any other roadway system. Robbinsdale School officials have requested a temporary construction access off Sailor Lane, which will only be used for the loading of building materials for better access to this rea school space. No permanent access or parking will be permitted along this segment of Sailor Lane during construction. There should be little, if any expanded traffic to this school due to this addition. City staff does not have any other requirements or comments related to access or traffic under this proposal. •• Drainage & Utilities Drainage impacts from this small addition will be nominal, and the existing storm water drainage systems should provide adequate measure to control all on-site drainage requirements. All necessary utilities to serve this new addition area will be fed from the existing school facility. The City Engineers have provided a brief response in their review memo that addresses this issue. There are no other comments or concerns regarding drainage or utilities at this time. + Landscaping No additional landscaping is required or being asked for under this nominal sized site plan application. • Lighting The electrical plans call for two new, wall mounted (exterior) lights. One luminaire will be located above the newly constructed doorway entry, and the other near the southwest most corner of the addition. Both of these lights appear to be down-cast luminaires and due to the size and setbacks from the adjacent residential area, no photometric plan will be necessary. RECOMMENDATION Recommend the Planning Commission provides a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2016-002, the Site and Building Plan for the new classroom and entryway additions for Northport Elementary School, subject to the following conditions: The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 2.All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarantee. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 02/11/16 Page 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 3, 2016 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review - Northport School Addition Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on January 14, 2016, for the proposed Northport School Addition: Civil Site Plans, December 4, 2015 Subject to final staff site plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of the Land Alteration Permit: CLO Demolition & Erosion Control Plan 1.Add additional silt fence as shown. 2.Add note "Construction entrance on Sailor Lane shall be for material and equipment delivery only. Contractor site access and parking must take place in the site's parking lot." Miscellaneous 3.See redlines for additional site plan comments. 4.Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 5.Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer's design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer's immediate and direct supervision (see attached template letter). The design project engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 6.Provide a memo documenting the existing underground storage has sufficient capacity for the proposed roof run-off. Prior to Issuance of a Land Alteration 7. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended by the City Engineer. Northport School Addition Page 2 of 2 Site Plan Review, February 3, 2016 8.A letter of creditor a cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 9.A construction management plan and agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting 10.A City of Brooklyn Center Land Disturbance Permit is required. 11.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 12.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 13.A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined by the City. G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\Northport Elementary Phase 5 2016\Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\160203_Plan Review Memo.doc CDcm=C.,C#) LUCO '—LupME III bdIII—CD I-CCMI- cz=I— cm ccwI-zLU0 ZZ - BEE '3 h V He ""UNgqo *--: tiR I1 cz w I AI!L'!Ii i 3- dL ow P HS I gg d a aa a a aa H .P. ! ! a0 0 0000 00 Lup-h H, a. aafla a a a;a a :i r: ;: rL ulW! Ila Off a. aEaaa aaaaa a I ft 2 lid H d aka a Wa a a a a a a)a a aaa a a a •aa aaa a a a aa aa aaa -a a a aaaa aa aa a aaa ab ;a 1.H N I h a aa Mi z zC a. CCI-.200 20 00CWa 0= ii a a !:•LLJ O)Z. a-•o z O 1i1iEI1IIiIIll EJ IF 155 Ell. I 29 33 2h pHIM:h -IM 2 22 h h 18 MIMI EJ oøøøeø p d P 9li 11 flau- d Hfifll 51's3 832 3 2 2 3 32 8 8 9 83 2 333 PRIHP 3 8 UL4g.. 8 3 $ r -91 HIUM RMi MW INAR :i ii- 0 LU a I r' . 2cI)4 - _.JI_ •—=•— - - - u.as G) - _ -- •E1flor1ff lu0> I—'I- 'WA t w 6! jg IV jj r Ng LENDOOGHD ZI0 k 4P Ph bp hIH 1 911H H !IMllHflIIIIIINIIIFIUNOIIIIIII WHIM h U 1 N91 \\\\ / 'N IL r TH dI L P iugI H '7- \\ ( - C fin I'll' lu cc h 3 h b VIA L all III : - 13n I I Oil ...... ..... 1H : Ell Li I! I I m i ii H i k I ii li illIIllH 111 Hi!. I Jf al 31) i1 : lb J ki L I. I HOMHli:! liI t:i rh b J HPd h JiL Li d n Ph tdd P ui HP OdHI !Ik H:! th{ hh®® ®®® ®®® ® (2) a (2) 0 ® ® ® ® h ! Ill P UI-iiFlzi lu KUM PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-002 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS - ISD NO. 281 REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR NEW CLASSROOM AND ENTRY ADDITION TO NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002 was submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools-ISD No. 281 requesting approval of a new Site Plan to construct a New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on February 11, 2016 to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2016-002, and reviewed and received a planning report and city engineer's report on the proposed new Site and Building Plan for the proposed Northport Elementary School classroom and entry addition to the school facility; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 3 5-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby recommends to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan for the classroom and entryway addition to Northport Elementary School, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2016-002, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The Site Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; B.The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; C.The Site Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; D.The Site Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and E. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-002 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 2.All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarante February 11, 2016 Date ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Morgan; and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof - Vice-Chair Koenig; Commissioners Schonning; MacMillan; Sweeney; Morgan; and Tade; and the following voted against the same: None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FEBRUARY 11, 2016 1.CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Koenig at 7:00 p.m. 2.ROLL CALL Vice Chair Alexander Koenig, Commissioners John MacMillan, Carlos Morgan, Stephen Schonning, Rochelle Sweeney, and Susan Tade were present. Chair Randy Christensen was absent and excused. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Denise Bosch, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve the agenda of the February 11, 2106 meeting. The motion passed. 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 2016 There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tade, to approve the minutes of the January 14, 2016 meeting. The motion passed. 5.CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Vice Chair Koenig explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 6.PLANNING ITEMS 6a) ISD 9281 - ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016-002; CONSIDERATION OF A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPLICATION OF A 32' X 32' CLASSROOM ADDITION AND A 32' X 20' ENTRYWAY ADDITION FOR THE NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; 5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD PC Minutes 02-11-16 -1- DRAFT Vice Chair Koenig introduced Application No. 2016-002, Consideration of Site and Building Plan Application of a 32' x 20' Entryway Addition for the Northport Elementary School; located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Benetti presented the application and noted that legal notice was publishedin the local Sun- Post and notice letters were delivered to all neighboring properties within 150 feet of the subject site. He stated that the Commission may elect to allow public comments if any homeowners or members of the public wish to be heard on this matter, but no Public Hearing was scheduled. He provided background; the scope of improvements; access and site issues; drainage and utilities; landscaping; and lighting information on the project. He recommended that the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2016-002, the Site and Building Plan for the new classroom and entryway additions for Northport Elementary School, subject to the noted conditions. Vice Chair Koenig called for questions and comments from Commissioners. Vice Chair Koenig asked how the classroom will be utilized. Greg Dehler, Wold Architects & Engineers, replied it will be a resource room. Vice Chair Koenig asked about the handicap accessible entrance. Mr. Dehler explained that the ramp and stairs will be eliminated and built on the inside. He stated that this type of route was added to all the other entrances at the school. Vice Chair Koenig stated he has observed the renovation process as he lives near the school. He feels the new exterior is attractive and he asked if the new addition will match the current exterior. Mr. Dehler answered affirmatively. Commissioner Morgan commented that schools are becoming life centers that encompass the community. Mr. Dehier stated that most of the schools in the district are utilized for extended hours and the resource room addition does provide more breathing room for the school. Vice Chair Koenig stated that this is a good choice over mobile classrooms. Commissioner Morgan asked how long construction will take. Mr. Dehler stated that it will be completed this fall. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-02 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-002 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS. PC Minutes 02-11-16 -2- DRAFT There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-02. Voting in favor: Vice Chair Koenig, Commissioners MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, Sweeney, and Tade. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed. The Council will consider the application at its February 22, 2016 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. PC Minutes 02-11-16 -3- DRAFT City Council Meeting February 22, 2016 Agenda Item No. 9.a Wold Architects & Engineers, on behalf of ISD No. 281 requesting Site and Building Plan approval of a new classroom and entryway addition for Northport Elementary Subject property located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard School located in the R1 (One Family Residence) district; surrounded by Northport Park to the north; and single family uses to the east, south and west. Site/Aerial Map Northport Elementary opened 1960 - operated by the Robbinsdale Area Schools (ISD No. 281) as a kindergarten through 5th grade school. School has an enrollment of 550 -600 students, with 90-100 teachers and support staff. ISD #281 wrapping up an $18 million, five-year phased redevelopment 32’ x 32’ single story classroom addition off SE wing of school 32’ x 20’ entryway – double door vestibule area with accessibility ramp Access for the school will be unaffected; no new access points planned from neighboring Sailor Lane Temporary construction access will be allowed off Sailor Lane; used only for loading of building materials for better access (to this area) No permanent access or parking will be permitted along this segment of Sailor Lane during construction Little if any expanded traffic to this school due to this addition minimal loss of playground space due to this addition; no playground equipment will be required to be moved or relocated. Drainage impacts from this small addition will be nominal, and the existing storm water drainage systems should provide adequate measure to control all on-site drainage requirements. All necessary utilities to serve this new addition area will be fed from the existing school facility. No additional landscaping is required under this application. Lighting Plan calls for two new, wall mounted (exterior) lights; one located above the newly constructed doorway entry, and the other near the southwest most corner of the addition. February 11, 2016 – item presented to the Planning Commission for consideration (w/o public hearing) notice letters were mailed to all property owners within 150 - feet of the school property (no comments) Planning Commission provided a favorable recommendation to the City Council (PC Res. No. 2016 -02 ) to approve Planning Application No. 2016 -002 Adopt the Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016 -002 , Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools – ISD No. 281 Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval for New Classroom and Entry Addition to Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. Conditions: 1)The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 2)All conditions noted in the City Engineer’s Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3)The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarantee. City Council Agenda Item No. lOa COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk aam 4YW* SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 1425 55th Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 1425 55th 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. This is a 1 building, 4-unit multifamily property. The previous rental license was a Type III Rental License. This property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License based on thirteen (3.25/unit) property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection and one (0.25/unit) validated police nuisance incidents for the past twelve months. Staff from Administration, Building & Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan, which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV Rental License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 06-29-2015 The Owner, Trung Duong, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 1425 55th Ave N, a 1 building, 4-unit multifamily property. 08-12-2015 An initial rental license inspQction was conducted, 13 property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 09-21-2015 A second rental inspection was conducted and failed. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 09-30-2015 The previous rental license expired. IW!ssion: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive cominiwit,v that enhances the qlL(ditj' ojlfe for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 10-05-2015 A third inspection was not conducted no access at time of inspection. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 10-19-2015 A fourth inspection was conducted and corrections were complete. $200 reinspection fees remain due. 11-06-2015 $200 reinspection fees were paid and license passed. 12-09-2015 City records indicate one (0.25/unit) validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. Incidents were 04-22-2015, disturbing peace. 12-09-2015 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. 01-06-2016 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. 02-04-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 02-09-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 02-12-2016 A $300 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 02-12-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held February 22, 2016. If approved, after six months, a new rental license is required. The license process will begin immediately. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The 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. Mission: Ensuring an altractii'e, clean, safe, inclusive cousnuinhly that cult ujices the quality of IEIC for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 4.Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5.Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Rental License Category Criteria Policy - Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1.Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2.Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 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. Mission: Ensuring on attractive, clean, safi?, inclusive coinnuinity that enhances the quality oJljfe for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 4. License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units, to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria -- License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Onlv Type I - 3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+ units 0-0.75 Type 11-2 Year 1-2 units 3+ units .75 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+ units Greater than 3 Type III - 1 Year Type IV —6 Months b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average nu mber of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defi ned 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, aut o theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purp oses of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic AIission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community I/Wi enhances (lie quality (!tlUe fin , our/preserves (lie public (inst [Ei1lh[iJ I R V MhY4 S I k'4 (I] 1I I1SJ'J1 Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51 8B .01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Attachment - Mitigation Plan k1!ssion: Ensuring an attr(lC1i'e, Ck'(lfl, Safe, inclusive conununhly that enhances time quialitj' of lè for all people amid preserves the public trust BUILDING AND COAM. UNLTY STANDARDSr Ctyf BROOKLYN Rental Licenso Mitigotion Plan Ty IV L1na Hiidwrin AlAUga ilD n Pla ns wlli:not bo accoptod. A Ifliable form can be found on the City's website at wi Ily brokI eeroror coll (76S) -33O to hve an l tronc copy sent t you via ernail. Based on property conditions dier vaildatod P011CA n0SOM00 Irl.oidents, the above referenced property qualifies for 0 Type IV-6 Month Rental License. Prier to application approval by the Oily CouicIl a NOVernplld MIliicn Plan rnui be completed and approved by City staff. .A !1iUgatiori Plan must be completed Immediatelyin ordn,r to wre (Immly 1eion of the license ppillori pf ess, Th u K-1 itigation Plan thould indicate the steps being take to carocI Edontiflad Violations and the mea-aures that will b taken to omueelonqQinq oornplianw with CEtY Ordna noes and applicable oodes. A Mi(igaion Plan allows the owner and the City lo rilew conoerns. end Idoilify posib1e kiivns to impma .overd condiflons of the property. If the Mitigation Plan is not Ubti'Il1d r and all i(oms am ret eempted withEn Iba penhg 1bense perlQd, or the above property :oJJra(&s beyond the license expiration date, enforcement actions such as ch1lion, fomial CetflplIn F or 110onse review flLay result. Bcfore-subniit[i fill-out Sections A B and C locatad On pagas Z d5 P.irQ 1A - Type N Rw itii Ur$ ,W r1U!i Plait, 4445 Cy Brcrn]c1y -.—iifWtha wnily Skd 3C1 e?iter, MrJ5543O-215 I PIT63)Ee3-330 I 1T7111 Phao I 1)Use a written lea trnet Th lease ag.roornont shall iFlclude the Grime free Housing Lease Addendum, A Gopy pftha lDa s e agroDment.and Crime Free Housing L,ieaso, Adtidum must be attached to the M.fUgation Plan when subrntted r-71 2)Agree to pursue the termination or lease aj3 remnt Or oviction.,of taiiath who violate the terms of the lee orany adolendunis. 3 :1 Conduct criminal b crond ohecl ,, f ll ow prpective Lotiants If It is a current lanant a, new background check is not required Must be able to provide dowrnenttifl to City if requestedZ 4) Attend a City approvec eight-1ivr Crime Free Housing train lin.g course lnf matlon for pprQved ww$os tn be found at wc#w.mncpa.net under the Training and Events - tab, A copy of th thiie Free Housing Certificate must be attached to the Mitigation Plan when Embmitted. Crime Free Husin iialnng was opted ons schedud for)12 kJf/ 2. Owner or agenttinded/I Iritto attend trsIrhg at city f: IZI 5) Subunit Monthly Updatebythe 10 11 dyofeach month. Phase II jJ 1) Complete a Security Assessnieniand implement impovernents requested by the Brooklyn Center Police DeprimeRt Tos4hedWe an initial or follow-up Security Assessment, call (763) 5683344 A fol Iwvp assm ment rnt't be mplte lbefore the licnsa expirticm data to vaiffV the securly biprovemonts have been impIemented If a Security Asssrrent has beer prvlousty completed, wrha the edrnptellion d.eie. Setirly Msesrnnt was conipleedontis scheduled fec 12 Seurly A sient followup was completed oMs scheduled fort Continue Sectiont A, Ph UI on Pago 1. Pog24 TV)IfUt in Cytra1z1ym C x'—uId1fl d CrnrnunByaan1 pTflWt A 81 stL)I Ci kFurwy Eroc ynCn1r MN 55 43 MV99 I Pftne ,.1TJ 5E3-3c' I TTY: i1 I Ps [7Ol) 43O i3VI1MG JLND corThIuNirY 'rANDARusCity of --ROOTCLYN u_r I- hAr1 Rontal Lirne Mitigation PlanCENTERrjpc IV License etk A—Ci*ne Fz Housxrtg Pro'm qzifrrie,us (ônirwet1) Phase Iii 1) Owncrcr agent will atLnr at minimum 50% (2) of the kR,M. msotlngt. Th ARM motIngs knustbg completed within the rite Jiise prlod and bafare the pend[ng Type IV License expiratton date, Registration is not required however you must sigrn during the rnaetmi, Write JW07 niectlng dates an owner or agent plan to ttencL Owner or jer will Uend A. meetings scheduled on; [J ) HaV4 no repel c'de viol1fn5 prevtously documented with the pstyear, The following actions are req ufroci for properties with four (4) or more units 1)Cotiuct res icent training anin ufl that includes crime prevention niques. 2)CGndut rgvlar r&sidet rneetin .1flf9affmi Pkvt, Rh L?- 44445 C1tyø!o1 yi C R fliifl1n inc! C flthuly cII SI rcekirCsnbr, MW 4-1 I Ph; TTY711 I F: 5E'g_ BUiLDTC AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS EP.OIN [425 I A N Rental License Mitigation PlanCENTER Lv cLIôri ,—Long Term CpILI Imprôvrnt Plan Based on condition and age, osUniaed replacement -dates need to be provided for common capi& items Eundrag ehourd be con&dered cocerdingly iterne That re bkeri worn r otbrwl In vlotlion prior to Ifie esltm4ledl replacernent die rieea to be rptRed sOnr. All ltis must havo .a daio for Estlmofod RopboomeW DI& Dat uh : UWl k n ow", r whn brokcWl will not be accptod' if you are unsure of when n iteni will need to be replaced, you can mako a prdictiori based on , appaerrte, tondiliori, or nufatur&JMus&y recommendations, Additional infomiation on Epected Useful Life can be found at membudov Item DatoLet Replant!Cilto xptd e laemnk Data EKernpe: LVaier heacr May, 20W F May 2020 FtITnace no?m 0 P.2040 Water Heater Unkrn My2)2S I<ltchen Appliances LaurfryAppliaree Racp-nt Pay 2-63 0 Smoke Atrm5I Carbon MorioxIe Alarms 2012 0 My 200 Unknown 1&-Y 2020 Windows 2010 N MJ 2050 Reef 2DM 203 4 Fence N/A Shed trinov,n --0. Garap NIA May 2050 Sidewalks Unkmon My 2040 ndiiiAbbrevlai:iiit IrF Needs ReplomntR !1Q R 41 TIt1l Pt Rivi 8 Rao, 44415 1tykly Ct ]lclij d Cn1tM 601 Shirel Creak Pks, Ekbn 1jya Ceraer, PF 130-2tdil I Phone: (7E3 &3- 3D I TTY, 71 1 Fax: (76) BUILDING AND COMMUNITY STANDA1D Cyo1 BROOKLYN 112 5Ii Avc N CENTER RentI Llcortso MItilgatlon Pir Typo IV Li cons* tbon C--SLç o fmprvie nmnt e nd Conthons of Propcwy The ileni& in thfs eciion ha'ie boon proven to assist wIthpropE?rty:ma.naqorrRntqnd prerty rre ma foIk,wEti t1it requredZ1) CFekIIi with (arant vy O-<Jys 2)Drve by property to theck for pm lble code vtoItiors 3)EviC( fanarits In voitlon of lease or any add.orvftms, [] 4) Rernn cutiont on all uiilly iee, taxes, astossmentq (i:nes, penalties, and other financial cL9imsJp•ayment due to the City. )Other. The following actions are optloniI iniles requlrd by the City El1)Provide iawn5nOw El2)Prove e rbae Q Install seturltyzystern, 4) Provide maintenance service plan for Nome of Servioe ocnpany: 0 ) If the Type IV- Month Rental Uoen5e is approved by the City Council, the licensee must comply wth the vpp roved Mitigtion Plan and all applicnhe City Codes.'Awritton report must be r. ubrnilled by tho I thyofehrnerithwith an updata oftlons btritkan bythB MnUr and!or açjentto comply wllh this Miigntion Pan A copy of the Monthly Update can be foid on page 7. A illlable form can be found on the City's wàbsie at wwcltyofbrookiynceRtor.or or call (76) 56933: to have an electronic copy sent to you VL :emii. Please, attnch addlWonal Informatlarn if nary pJReir Ulk iPrti v. 44n-•5 c1y ef rooktyft itev.ittdinj an4 Conrniunit hingb lri fih, IyftCEnt,N E43c21 PIicne: ES 6-53D T'TY:711 1 e.:(1) BUILDING AND COMMtINtfT STANDARDS CLy 1 UN - -_-- ROCKLYN ENTER j Typ V Llrt Snand verify- I vrIy that all Information provIc I an ooL're I Lrnder5taridthtif I do notcornpywiththe approved mitigation Plan, comply wilh all Rms ,,vilhIn tho Ilrta pnid, or Inpial ato boyond the tirn5e ep1raon da erioroernnt actris such as citations, formal complainis of ticorsa riaw may ros ii Ii TrUng DL rt DwrorAg9ntM1frrierd The Piee NO - cF 2 V01206 cwriir orAg n t Sguiure Dqfa JSjr'tO oxi TO, tAp attk Fe Pnt.I AddY.aiOwr or A g ent ft-Wure Of S!hr) Dfe city staff Only E 7J PoXe Dsp artn L.tI¼L... ii i?1g1 aswtflArY S1drd'spEir?rnBfli bTh Tom t/ ?LI?C MaFr) 4-14-1 Cfly of roQktyn çj _Ru j jdi nqrjLtjd CpmtttifltilY St&rLdardt DepthTu.rLt 65 116h i n1s 0røek ikwø/. r3cjn 0nIr MF1 S 54 -21 VJ I Phns: (-3 ITY; 711 1 F z x 173) City Council Agenda Item No. lOb [[I1IJ[IJ I fl V I M4 VA I 3 [I) 1I IiIA'A] DATE: February 11, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk jVW yv^ SUBJECT: City Charter Amendments Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council receive the Charter Commission amendment recommendations and consider directing Staff to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration. Background: On February 9, 2016, Charter Commission Chair Mark Goodell transmitted to City Manager Curt Boganey amendments to the City Charter as recommended by the Charter Commission. The amendments are to add a new Section 4.06 Write-In Candidates and renumber current Sections 4.06 and 4.07 to 4.07 and 4.08, respectively. I have reviewed the amendment and am highly in favor of its approval. The Cities of Blame and Fridley have amended their City Charters to require that a write-in candidate for city offices file a written request for the write-in votes to be counted. This amendment would require only tallying the write-ins for those who filed a request. It would eliminate the City having to tally all of those fictitious write-ins (i.e., Mickey Mouse, Anyone Else, Brad Pitt, etc.). Minn. Stat. §204B.09 Subd. 3 provides language for county, state, and federal offices as follows: Write-in candidates. (a) A candidate for county, state, or federal office who wants write-in votes for the candidate to be counted must file a written request with the filing office for the office sought not more than 84 days before the primary and no later than the seventh day before the general election. The filing officer shall provide copies of the form to make the request. Under Minn. Stat. §410.12 Subd. 7, the City Council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. If it is the direction of the City Council, we will prepare an ordinance for consideration within 30 days of Council receiving these recommendations. Adoption of said ordinance requires a unanimous approval of all Council Members to become effective. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust BROOKLYN CENTER HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION February 91h 2016 Curt Boganey City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Transmittal of Recommended Amendments to the City Charter Dear Mr. Boganey: The purpose of this letter is to transmit to the Brooklyn Center City Council proposed amendments to the Brooklyn Center City Charter. The enclosed recommended amendments are being forwarded for consideration for adoption by ordinance pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subdivision 7 and Section VIII(B)(3)(a) of the Charter Commission's Rules of Procedures ("Rules"). Each of the recommended amendments was accepted by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the actual membership (with never less than eight affirmative votes) of the Charter Commission as required by Section VIII(B)(1) of the Rules and are being transmitted as separate recommendations the City Council may act on individually or jointly. The Charter Commission understands the City will draft one or more ordinances as needed to address the recommended amendments and will act on them within the timelines established in Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subdivision 7. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or if you would like me to provide additional information regarding the Charter Commission's reasons behind the recommended amendment. Sincerely, Mark Goodell Chairperson Enclosure - Recommended Amendment #1 BROOKLYN CENTER HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHARTER AMENDMENTS The Brooklyn Center Home Rule Charter Commission hereby transmits the following recommended amendments to the City Charter for consideration and action by the City Council by ordinance pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subdivision 7. The following are presented as separate recommendations that the City Council may act on individually or jointly as it determines is appropriate. Recommended Amendment #1 Chapter 4 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by inserting the following new section 4.06, renumbering the current section 4.06 to 4.07 and renumbering current section 4.07 to 4.08 as follows: Section 4.06. WRITE1N CANDIDATES. A candidate for city office who wants writein votes for the candidate to be counted must file a written request with the filing officer for the office sought no later than the seventh day before the general municipal electiOn or special election. The filing officer shall provide copies of the form to make the request. Section 4.076. CANVASS OF ELECTION. The Council shall meet and canvass the election returns between the third (3rd) and the tenth (10th) day after any regular, primary or special election, and shall make full declaration of the results as soon as possible, and file a statement thereof with the City Clerk. This statement shall include: (a) the total number of good ballots cast; (b) the total number of spoiled or defective ballots; (c) the true vote for each candidate, with an indication of those who were elected or nominated; (d) a true copy of the ballots used; (e) the names of the judges and clerks of election; and (f) such other information as may seem pertinent. The City Clerk shall forthwith notify all persons elected or nominated of their election or nomination. In case of a tie vote, the Council shall determine the result by lot. The City Clerk shall be the final custodian of the ballots. Section 4.0. PROCEDURE AT ELECTIONS. The City Council may by ordinance adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary or desirable to regulate the conduct of elections subject to the provisions of this charter and the laws of the State of Minnesota when applicable. Submitted to the City this 9th day of February 2016. BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION Mark Goodell, Chairperson Mary O'Connor, Secretary City Council Agenda Item No. lOc S1IIOJ I I K'4 VA I )k'A (I) 1abI )]JJ!A1 DATE: February 3, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Gannon, Chief of Police 12 SUBJECT: Ordinance Recommendation - Restricting Level 3 Predatory Offender Residence Location Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council approves an ordinance that restricts Level III predatory offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, licensed child-care facility, or public playground within the City of Brooklyn Center. Background: Risk Level III offenders by definition are considered the highest risk to re-offend. Offenders are assigned a Risk Level I, II, III prior to being released from prison. Offenses such as criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, false imprisonment, soliciting a minor to engage in prostitution, and 1st degree murder are examples of offenses that qualify as predatory offenses. These offenses are often committed against the communities most vulnerable, children. The residency movement of a Level III offender triggers a community-wide public notification meeting. The 1994— Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act and the 1996 - Megan's Law are the two most important legislative acts related to Level III predatory offenders. These laws were enacted after children were victimized. Mitigating Factors Hennepin County Probation instituted a prohibited zip code practice for the City of Minneapolis. The zip codes currently prohibited for any Level III offender on probation to move into includes: 55403, 55405, 55411, 55412, and 55430 (south of 531d) The impact of this practice had adirect and almost immediate impact on the number of Level III offenders moving to Brooklyn Center. A voluntary questionnaire completed by all six Level III offenders in Brooklyn Center showed that five of the six (83%) had residency options limited by the zip code prohibition and chose Brooklyn Center as the closest allowable option. Historically, Brooklyn Center has three or four Level III offenders residing within the City at any given time. In 2015, that number would have more than doubled if not for the emergency moratorium passed by council action in October of 2015. Current Level 3 POR Density There are currently 147 Risk Level III offenders residing in Hennepin County; 126 live within Minneapolis and 21 offenders live in Hennepin County cities other than Minneapolis. If the moratorium had not been passed, Brooklyn Center would have had eight of the 21 Level III offenders, or 38% of all offenders outside of Minneapolis. The general population of Brooklyn fission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safecoinnnuiitj' that enhances the quality fkfe and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Center accounts for only 4% of all Hennepin County residents outside of Minneapolis. Based on an equal distribution model for Hennepin County cities other than Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center should never have more than one Level III offender residing within the City limits and we currently have six. Future Concerns The City of Brooklyn Center was the first inner-ring suburb to feel the impact of Hennepin County Probation's zip code restrictions and took direct action limiting the disproportionate number of Level III offenders in one community over another. Hennepin County Probation has not stopped their prohibited zip code practice. Other inner-ring suburbs such as Columbia Heights and Hilltop have enacted either their own moratoriums or ordinances establishing residency restrictions. Since the City Council took action, we have been contacted by other Hennepin County Chiefs of Police wanting to discuss this issue and seek out ways to protect their communities from the current Hennepin County prohibited zip code practice. The ability to regulate the residency of Level III offenders by a city has been established in Minnesota for years and has not yet been challenged. A current lawsuit against the State's commitment of Minnesota Sex Offender Program ("MSOP") - committing offenders to state institutions - may result in an unprecedented number of potential Level III offenders released back into the community. If current Hennepin County Probation practices are not changed, it's predicted that some of those offenders will end up in Brooklyn Center. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will ensure a safe and secure community. Attachments: The following documents were reviewed prior to this recommendation to Council. 1.Study-Documenting Predatory Offenders in Minneapolis (August 2015) 2.Wright State and Longwood University Studies 3.Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues - 2003 DOC Report to the Legislature 4.Sex Offenders in the Community - International Chiefs of Police ( September 2007) Mission: Ensur;ng an attraelive, cliz, that e;th,nces the qiwIi' of Ie and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on the 28th day of March 2016 at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance limiting the residency location of certain predatory offenders. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO LIMITING THE RESIDENCY LOCATION OF CERTAIN PREDATORY OFFENDERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Finding and intent. 1.01 Repeat predatory offenders present a threat to the public safety of the community as a whole, especially children. Predatory offenders assigned a risk level III under the risk assessment scale established by the Minnesota Commissioner of Corrections are more likely than other classifications of offenders to use physical violence, to repeat their offenses, to have committed multiple offenses, to have more victims than are ever reported, and, as a result, to be prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. The cost of predatory offender victimization to society at large, while not precisely calculable, is steep. 1.02 The City has a compelling interest in promoting, protecting and improving the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens. By this ordinance, the City prohibits certain predatory offenders from establishing temporary or permanent residence in certain locations where children are known to regularly congregate in concentrated numbers. 1.03 The City has received a disproportionate number of Level III predatory offenders as compared with other cities within Hennepin County and the City Council is compelled to act to establish restrictions on where such offenders may reside in order to protect children within the community. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-201 is amended by adding the following definitions: 3a. Child - any person under the age of eighteen (18)-. ORDINANCE NO. 3b. Child care facility - a facility licensed by the Minnesota Deoartment of Public Welfare to provide child care for six or more children at one time. This term also includes, but is not limited to, facilities having programs for children known as nursery schools, day nurseries, child care centers, play aroups, day care centers, cooperative day care centers and Head Start programs. 4al. Designated predatory offender --any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes, Section 244.052 a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state in whichthat person's risk assessment indicates a high risk of re-offense. 18a. Permanent residence - a place where a person abides, lodges, or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. 23a. Public playground - an area designated primarily for children's play including a school building playground, a child care building playground, a play area of a public park, or an area that contains permanent play equipment. 31a. School - any public or nonpublic elementary school, middle school, or secondary school as those terms are defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 120A.05. 35a. Temoorarv residence - a niace where a nerson abides. lodes. or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year and which is not the person's permanent address, or a place where the person routinely abides. lodges, or resides for a period of four or more consecutive or non-consecutive days in any month and which is not the person's permanent residence. Section 3. Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapter 12 is amended to add new Sections 12- 1600 to 12-1603 as follows: Section 12-1600. LIMITATIONS ON PREDATORY OFFENDERS. It is unlawful for any designated predatory offender to establish a permanent or temporary residence within 2.000 feet of any school, child care facility, or public playground. Section 12-1601. MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. For nurooses of determiniiw the minimum distance separation required by Section 12-1600, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent or temporary residence of the designated predatory offender to the nearest outer property line of the protected school, child care facility, or public playground. Section 12-1602. PENALTIES. Any person who violates this Section shall be auilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a person maintains a permanent or temporary residence in violation of this Code shall constitute a separate offense. ORDINANCE NO. Section 12-1603, EXCEPTIONS. A designated predatory offender residing withi prohibited, area as described in Section 12-1600 does not commit ayjolaion of th Section if any of the following al: 1.The person established the permanent residence or temporaryjsicinc and reported and registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statute Sections 243.166 and 243.167 or a successor statute, prior to October 2.The person was a minor when they committed the offense and hQhh was convicted as an adult: 3., The person is minor; 4.The school, child care facility, or public playground within 2,000 feet of the person's permanent residence was opened after the personiabiishd the permanent residence or temporary residence and report dfl registered the residence pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sect ions 243.l and 243.167, or a successor statute 5.The residence is also the primary residence of the persQniaflts grandparents, siblings, or spouse; or 6. The residence is a propert —y purchased, leased, or contracted with and licensed by the Minnesota DQpartment of Corrections rior to Octo l— 1 Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor ATTEST:City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Stikee-ut indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.) Work Session Agenda AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION February 22, 2016 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. TH 252 Corridor Study Update PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.Paperless Packets Report 2.Opportunities for Small and Diverse Businesses 3. New Rental Dwelling License Moratorium Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 k I MA (I) R.1191 13 gJVj i1IJ[iJ I 'LI) 1 C41 *'E1 [iJl DATE: February 16, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: TH 252 Corridor Study Review Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the Trunk Highway (TH) 252 Corridor Study pertaining to consideration of adopting the study as a planning guide for the corridor. Background: On January 25, 2016, the City Council held a Work Session to discuss the TH 252 project status including four primary corridor alternatives in Brooklyn Center, to discuss public involvement measures and to discuss a strategy in developing a final preferred alternative for the City to support and endorse. Since then, three open houses were held on January 26-28, 2016, where the four alternatives were discussed and input was received from stakeholders/residents. The draft feasibility study has been completed by incorporating public feedback and includes a recommended alternative for the TH 252 Corridor within Brooklyn Center (see attached). The next steps are to finalize the Brooklyn Center Feasibility Study with a preferred interchange alternative for formal consideration; proceed with interchange funding opportunities; and proceed with the more detailed Freeway Conversion Study led by Hennepin County. The goal of the Freeway Conversion Study is to develop a detailed geometric layout for the entire corridor, including determining a preferred alternative for the Brooklyn Park portion of the corridor north of 73rd Avenue similar to what the City of Brooklyn Center is doing as part of our current study south of 73rd Avenue. Policy Issues: Does the City Council desire to consider the TH 252 Corridor Study for adoption as a planning guide with a preferred alternative? Strategic Priorities: Key Infrastructure Investments Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive coinnutnity that enhances the quality qflifè for alipeople and preserves the public trust TM 252 C 0 F",^ P,^, D 0 Vx, STUDY H IJ1I' 1tjj Interim and Long Term Improvements in Brooklyn Center TH 252 Corridor Study T ^' d'252 Coffidor Südy FINAL REPORT Contents INTRODUCTION & EXCUTIVF SUMMARY...........................................................................4 ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................4 Reasonfor Study ...................................................................................................................................... StudyArea ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Study Participants..................................................................................................................................... BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................7 MnDOTTH 252 Traffic Study................................................................................................................7 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan...................................................................................................7 Brooklyn Park Comprehensive Plan ......................................................................................................7 MnDOT Signal Optimization Study.......................................................................................................7 Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan ....................................................................7 Minnesota State Highway Investment Plan..........................................................................................7 CONDITIONS 8EXISTING AND FOR E CAST ............................................................................. ExistingTraffic Volumes and Congestion .............................................................................................8 Crash History .............................................................................................................................................8 ( TransitService...........................................................................................................................................8 Other Concerns in the TH 252 Corridor ............................................................................................1 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections .................................................................................................1 3 Noise ......................................................................................................................................................13 Cut -through Traffic ..............................................................................................................................1 3 ForecastTraffic Volumes and Congestion .........................................................................................1 3 ForecastConditions and Recommendations ......................................................................................1 3 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA...........................................................15 Goals ........................................................................................................................................................15 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 1 5 EvaluationCriteria .................................................................................................................................1 5 LONG TERM VISSION .........................................................................................................16 LongTerm Freeway Access Concepts ................................................................................................. 1 6 Transit....................................................................................................................................................16 INTERIM INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES IN BROOKLYN CENTER......................................18 66th Avenue N Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 18 Alternatives Rejected .......................................................................................................................... 1 8 Alternatives Considered in Detail ....................................................................................................20 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Connections........................................................................22 Page 1 TH 252 Corridor Study Transit....................................................................................................................................................22 70thAvenue N Alternatives.................................................................................................................22 1.Close 70th Avenue N and Provide Pedestrian Crossing.....................................................22 2.Underpass or Overpass.............................................................................................................22 3 . Interchange ..................................................................................................................................22 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Connections........................................................................22 73rdAvenue N Alternatives ................................................................................................................24 1.Half Diamond ..............................................................................................................................24 2.Overpass or Underpass.............................................................................................................24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Connections ........................................................................24 Evaluationof Alternatives ........... ................. ............................... ..........................................................26 Evaluation of 66th Avenue Intersection Alternatives ....................................................................26 PreferredAlternative for 66th Avenue N.........................................................................................31 EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM ACCESS LOCATION ALTERNATIVES .................................311 ConceptA.................................................................................................................................................31 Benefits......... .........................................................................................................................................32 Impacts...................................................................................................................................................32 Concept B ................................................................................................................................................32 Benefits..................................................................................................................................................32 Impacts..................................................................................................................................................32 ConceptD................................................................................................................................................33 Benefits..................................................................................................................................................33 Impacts..................................................................................................................................................33 ConceptF.................................................................................................................................................33 Benefits..................................................................................................................................................33 Impacts..................................................................................................................................................34 RecommendedAlternative ...................................................................................................................34 Conclusionand Recommendation ........................................................................................................40 PUBLICINPUT .....................................................................................................................41 PublicInvolvement Process ...................................................................................................................41 PublicComments received....................................................................................................................41 OpenHouse 1: May 21, 2014.........................................................................................................41 OpenHouse 2: February 10, 2015 ................................................................................................42 OpenHouse 3: April 2,2015 ..................... .... .................... . ............................................................. 42 Open House 4: January 26-28, 2016...........................................................................................42 NEXTSTEPS .........................................................................................................................43 Table of Figures Figure1: Study Area...............................................................................................................................................................5 Figure2: Existing and forecast traffic volumes..................................................................................................................8 Figure3: Corridor capacity ...................................................................................................................................................9 Figure4: Existing intersection conditions...........................................................................................................................10 Page 2 TH 252 Corridor Study Figure 5: Crash history .........................................................................................................................................................11 Figure6: Issues map .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 3 Figure7: Alternative Access Concepts ...............................................................................................................................1 6 Figure8: 66th Avenue N alternatives rejected ...............................................................................................................1 8 Figure9: 66th avenue N alternatives considered in detail...........................................................................................20 Figure10: 70th Avenue N alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure11: 73rd Avenue N alternatives............................................................................................................................24 Figure12: Concept A ...........................................................................................................................................................32 Figure13: Concept B............................................................................................................................................................33 Figure14: Concept D ........................................................................................................................................................... Figure15: Concept F ............................................................................................................................................................35 Appendix A: Open House 4 Questionnaire and Responses Appendix B: Other Public Comments Appendix C: City Council Resolution Letter Appendix D: Riverwood Neighborhood Petition Page 3 TH 252 Corridor Stu INTRODUCTION & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY e9V i]y The fl-I 252 Corridor Study was undertaken by the City of Brooklyn Center to establish the long term vision for TH 252 that will address existing safety, congestion and neighbor connectivity issues on TH 252. The goal of the study is to identify the short term and long term improvements on TH 252 that should be implemented within Brooklyn Center to accomplish the long term vision. The project study area includes TH 252 between -694 and TH 610 in the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. The study was guided by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with representatives from the City of Brooklyn Center, City of Brooklyn Park, Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, and Minnesota Deportment of Transportation (MnDOT) who met throughout the process. TH 252 is a Principal Arterial and MnDOT trunk highway. It is currently an expressway design that varies between four and six lanes with at-grade signalized intersections. The intersections on TH 252 all rank among the top 200 intersections in the state for crash costs and there have been a total of 6 fatal crashes since 2003 with 4 fatal crashes in the City of Brooklyn Center. Goals, objectives and evaluation criteria were established early in the study to guide the development and evaluation of alternatives for the corridor. An evaluation of the existing traffic and safety in the corridor concluded that a freeway was the best alternative to safely accommodate future traffic volumes and allow TH 252 to serve its function as ci Principal Arterial as designated in the Metropolitan Council's 2040 Transportation Plan. The emphasis of principal arterials is on moving large volumes of traffic over long distances rather than providing direct access to land. A freeway facility is consistent with the emphasis of principal arterials and would provide a safer facility and accommodate projected increases in traffic volumes on the corridor better than the existing facility or other at-grade intersection alternatives. There are currently three at-grade signalized intersections on TH 252 within the City of Brooklyn Center spaced approximately one-half mile apart: 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue and 73rd Avenue. Metropolitan Council spacing criteria for urban freeways recommend that interchanges be spaced at least one mile apart. Within Brooklyn Center, improvements were considered at each of the existing at-grade signalized intersections on TH 252 ranging from improvements to the at-grade intersections to grade separated interchanges. These improvements were evaluated to identify the best options at each intersection (in isolation) in order to establish a right of way footprint for each location. At 66th Avenue the recommended alternative is a folded diamond interchange; a standard diamond interchange is recommended at 70th Avenue and either a half diamond interchange or split diamond interchange with Brookdale Drive is recommended for 73rd Avenue. This information was used to then establish potential long-term Freeway Access Concepts for the corridor. Four Freeway Access Concepts were identified within the City of Brooklyn Center. The concepts included interchange access at 66th Avenue and 73rd Avenue (Concepts A and B), interchange access at 73rd Avenue only (Concept D), and interchange access at 70th Avenue (Concept F). See pages 31-34 for further description of these concepts. MnDOT prepared 2040 traffic forecasts for each of these concepts and developed preliminary alignments and profiles to ensure the feasibility of these alternatives. These concepts were presented at three public open houses to get input from residents and businesses in the area. These concepts were also evaluated against the evaluation criteria early in the study. Based on the evaluation a combination of Concept A and B is recommended as the preferred freeway access concept in Brooklyn Center. The recommended concept would have a folded diamond interchange at 66th Avenue, would close Page 4 TH 252 Corridor St access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue and would provide full access to TH 252 at 73rd Avenue or a combination of 73rd Avenue and Brookdale Drive. Recommended improvements to TH 252 in Brooklyn Park are pending further evaluation and consideration as part of the future TH 252 Freeway Conversion Study. Reason Sut'y The purpose of the Trunk Highway (TH) 252 Corridor Study is to identify interim and long-term improvements to address existing safety, congestion, and neighborhood connectivity issues on TH 252. The TH 252 corridor has someof the highest crash rates in the Twin Cities metro area. The 66th Avenue intersection has ranked in the top 1 0 of highest crash intersections in the metro over the last 10 years. Recently the 73rd Avenue and TH 252 intersection jumped to 2nd in crash costs based on 2012 to 2014 crash data because of two recent fatalities. There have been a total of 6 fatal crashes since 2003. TH 252 is a congested corridor, especially during the morning and evening rush hours. While the overall level of service for the intersections are generally within acceptable limits due to signal timing on TH 252, the side street average delays indicate a much more congested level of service in the peak hours. Naturally, as traffic increases, these crash numbers and congestion levels will only deteriorate. Lastly, the long green times afforded to TH 252 traffic make it difficult for pedestrians and bicycles to cross TH 252, effectively creating a barrier to connecting residents to the east of TH 252 with the school and park facilities on the west. Due to the safety, congestion, and connectivity issues in the TH 252 corridor, the City of Brooklyn Center is interested in determining the long-term vision and identifying interim improvements to address these issues. udy Atei The project study area includes TH 252 between 1-694 and TH 610, in the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Figure 'I shows the location of the study area. TH 252 is one of a limited number of Principal Arterial roadways linking communities in the northwest area of the Twin Cities. TH 252 is under jurisdiction of MnDOT. It is an expressway facility that varies between four and six lanes. This study was led by the City of Brooklyn Center and focuses in particular on interim improvements at the three intersections in the city: 66th, 70th, and 73rd Avenues N. Stidy The study was guided by a TAC with representatives from the following agencies: • City of Brooklyn Center • City of Brooklyn Park • Metropolitan Council • Metro Transit • Minnesota Department of Transportation The TAC met a total of 7 times throughout the study process. Page 5 / f ont- 101,\il:( ) _I P!r5L1 I -JL-HV=-VJHV1 IV85th= ye- _=V== VV VHi N ijLL' L/V I HIV:VVVI ...... I VVV \VV V _Vf VV VV -V. V VV_IVV_V_ - r V \V [VVV I VVVVJ_1 VV \\8iSt-AVeN--- -- I - - V V V f V jVVV ==BreôkjaIe :Dr \\VV == - -. LH\ VJ/; VVV\\/ + 'V •... \'\ V - I - 7-rd -Ave-N-- ITVJi /JLt VVVV V:Vj _1 IIJ HStudy Area ______ I V : rr 6th Ave N - --fWNHESOTABrooklyn Park Brookl.yn Center ,_----- VJVV C V VVJJ N Figure 1 Study Area JC&VTER L from /V694 to 22 Corridor study Area TH 252 Corridor Study BACKGROUND TH 252 was originally envisioned as a freeway facility. However, in recent years the transportation funding climate has changed and priorities have shifted to maintenance of existing facilities. As a result, MnDOT and Metropolitan Council plans have not included recommendations or funding to convert TH 252 to a freeway. Despite the change in funding availability, several recent plans and studies have acknowledged the need for improvements to address safety, traffic operations, and neighborhood connectivity issues in the TH 252 Corridor. Several agencies have reexamined the long-term vision for TH 252 and identified interim improvements. Below is a summary of conclusions and recommendations from previous studies. /.0Oi' uI1 252 ik 5Ridy MnDOT completed a traffic study of TH 252 in 2008. The study identified existing and future safety and traffic congestion issues. As an interim measure to address traffic congestion, MnDOT recommended expanding the four-lane segment of TH 252 (Brookdale Drive to TH 610) to six lanes. c en i^ev C( ehe u si ve P kill The 2008 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan identifies traffic congestion on TH 252 and the need to address congestion on TH 252 in order to reduce traffic demand on the city's parallel arterial and collector roadways. The plan notes that several residential and business properties have access from the 66th, 70th, and 73rd Avenue N intersections. Any expansion of TH 252 must address access to these properties. 5io&dyrr rcivh C©ip Jersive p lun The 2008 Brooklyn Park Comprehensive Plan recommended closing the median at 81st Avenue N/Humboldt Avenue to reduce congestion on TH 252. Right-in/right-out access was proposed at this location. In order to address the long-term traffic and safety issues at this intersection, the plan recommended studying conversion of TH 252 to a freeway facility. OT 5çjifl OL llZ(Ot1 A 2013 MnDOT Signal Optimization Study evaluated existing signal timing. The study recommended new timing plans to optimize traffic operations on TH 252. The new signal timing plans were implemented in 2014. The study also recommended expanding existing four-lane segment (Brookdale Drive to TH 610) to six lanes. p© Mol Cundfl 2030 1isp©'iLi L©flky As noted above, the Metropolitan Council 2030 Transportation Policy Plan did not recommend freeway conversion of TH 252. However, the plan recommended construction of an additional northbound lane on either side of 81st Avenue. This project has been completed. Siioite H IhWy vsmii Phtni The 2014-2033 State Highway Investment Plan also does not include recommendations for TH 252 to be converted to a freeway facility. The plan includes TH 252 on the list of congestion and chokepoint unmet needs. Page 7 TH 252 Corridor EXISTING AND FORECAST CONDITIONS In order to develop recommendations for interim improvements to TH 252, the study partners reviewed data on existing and forecast conditions in the TH 252 corridor. The sections below document corridor characteristics and analysis to better understand issues in the corridor. csirj Tjk V© is icc C©ski Existing traffic volumes on TH 252 vary between 53,000 and 69,000 vehicles per day. The highest volumes are at the southern end of the corridor, between 1-694 and 70th Avenue N. Figure 2 shows existing traffic volumes in the corridor. TH 252 is an expressway facility that varies between four and six lanes. TH 252 is six lanes between -694 and Brookdale Drive, with a four-lane segment between Brookdale Drive and TH 610. The charts in Figure 3 illustrate that existing and forecast ADTs are greater than the capacity of a four-lane expressway facility. Existing traffic volumes result in Level of Service (LOS) D and E in the existing six-lane expressway segments. Figure 4 illustrates existing intersection conditions on TH 252. Overall intersection LOS is worst at Brookdale Drive (LOS F in the AM peak and C in the PM peak) and 85th Avenue N (LOS E in the AM Peak and D in the PM peak). While most intersections on TH 252 operate at an acceptable overall LOS, most eastbound and westbound movements are at LOS E and F in the morning and evening peak hours. Traffic crossing TH 252 can experience significant delays during the peak hour, as signals are optimized to move traffic on TH 252. Queue lengths can also be high on TH 252 during the peak hours. Queue lengths on TH 252 are greatest at 66th, Humboldt, and 85th Avenues N. Crash Hsoy As noted above, TH 252 has some of the highest crash rates in the Twin Cities. The intersections on TH 252 all rank among the top 200 intersections in the state for crash costs. A review of MnDOT 2011-2013 crash data indicated that the greatest safety problems occur at the intersections with 66th and 85th Avenues N. Figure 5 shows the results of the crash analysis of TH 252. At 66th Avenue N, the crash rate is 1.63, which exceeds the MnDOT Metro District critical crash rate of 0.75. The severity rate is 2.26, exceeding the MnDOT Metro District average severity rate of 0.9. The crash rate at 85th Avenue N is 1.06, with a severity rate of 1.4. Most intersection crashes (between 55 and 73 percent) were rear end crashes. A total of six fatal crashes occurred on TH 252 between 2003 and 2015. Two fatal crashes were associated with the intersection at 66th Avenue N and two fatalities occurred at 73rd Avenue N. S®rvic Two existing express bus routes stop on TH 252. Route 765 serves Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, and Downtown Minneapolis. Route 766 serves Anoka, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, and Downtown Minneapolis. Existing stops are located on TH 252 at 66th, 70th, and 73rd Avenues N. Park and Ride lots are located on the west side of TH 252 at 66th and 73rd Avenues. Figure 6 shows the locations of existing transit stops and park and ride lots. As of fall 2014, approximately 90 to 100 transit riders board buses daily at the existing park and ride locations. The 2030 Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan identifies TH 252 as a location for new and improved express bus service. Page 8 - J•j )/ I4 fr f Ri t -', Y fY \ F r [14jT !? N N -1T1Fp I1hW\t 14iTi 'r &-e i,rç\ - r JL - 15*i 1(INV 'OM o W Mid,40A IAP ! II I fF ) V - (ç \ c' 4f1t ' 1 PV4 - F / ___ ØI000 11 r coo LTI H I (ADT)2010/2011 Annaul Average Doily Ironic Volume i-u i crr 7Key 2030 Forecasted Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT) L 4 ri yi)JACirif F LJ4 MVI Source: MnDP Figure 2 X-B R 0 0KLYN e4 Existing & Forecast Traffic Voumes ______ from 1-694 to TH 610 Existing Future (2035) Source: MnDOT, authors Figure 8 Corridor Capacity - - amBROOKLYN CF—VIM from 1-694 to TH 610 /\ 105,000 LOSE - 70,000 LOS G LOSD LOSO LOSA LDIA 4-Lane Freeway 6-Lana Freeway , TH22 ADT Range TH 252 ADT Range 140,000 Assumptions: 130,000 Peek Hour Percentage: 8% Directional Orientation: 60,140% Base Saturation Flout Rate: 1900 pophpt 120,000 Accesses per mile:2.5 gIC Ratio:Exprxsst'tagC 110,000 Freruap 100,000 D—jo 00,000 80,000 101 E}70000 - - 50,000 C , -- Lii 40,000 - ______ - 42,000 Lass - 30,000 -- z LOS Loss 20,000 -LWB- 10,000 -rose- 4-Lane Expressway 6-Lane Expressway 061.0 85th Ave: WN 07Overall C East Bound 0 E 7 West Bound F F- Humboldt Ave: : I7BBo und - U F F F 2013 PM Peak Hour Maximum Queue 2013 AM Peak Hour Maximum QueueKey2013 Peak Hour Average Queue 2013 Peak Hour Maximum Queue au 1. '.••• : - ji 31 4r 5)r1155 BrookdaleDrive: INYa e L r 1- flP Overall E 11,East Bound \tt' - . ': 1 iu jIIUFt fit A.RK 70th Ave: 1 1OthJ\yeJfr I( East new C i t( fl 1I I' I 66th It 66th Ave: West Bound F F Source: MriDOT, autho Existing Intersection Conditions TBROZZLYN from I-694toTH61O4 70th Ave: 13 VV; [I Hear End []pe Other Al T :T\r \V. V - .V:VV '1 VVVS Crash Role.1.06Severiq Role; I AO i H , VV :;V:-V V, V V• V 1' I t4t. zit Crash Role: 50•r;Severltv RnIe , 70 2011-2013 Number of Crashes K2 y Average Crash Rate: 0.6 Average Severity Rate: 0.9 Fatalities since 2003 66th Ave: I V••••• V ' V li_C _I - - - —BrookJa{é1br jCrashRaIe_ff_j ______________V____ 96 ; •V .Vr::iVT • •V• •V - q. •VV..VVHV V.V::.iVV." •V E Croshh Role: .56Ve rVV)ç S I V _V•-V I4V.'1er$IA- •- -- F70th Ave Crash Rate:44 I / Crash Rate; 1,63 Sevoilly Rate: 2.26 J. r D near End El Side Swipe Other Source: MnDOT Crash Data Figure 5 XIBROI,KLYN arC 9e4i Crash summary from 1-694 to TH6JO TH 252 Corridor Ohc C©s i The ?H 252 C©i1d© Figure 6 illustrates additional concerns in the TH 252 corridor. These concerns are summarized below: Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections TH 252 is challenging to cross on foot or on bike. Crossings at signalized intersections are long and bicyclists and pedestrians experience long delays when waiting to cross. There are no opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross between signalized intersections, which are spaced approximately one half mile apart. There are also safety concerns related to at-grade pedestrian and bicycle crossings of TH 252, as it is a high speed expressway facility. These issues impact transit riders, as they must cross TH 252 on at least one end of their trip. These issues also limit connections between neighborhoods east and west of TH 252 and connections to the Mississippi River Trail, which parallels the Mississippi River on the east side of TH 252. There is one bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing TH 252 at 85th Avenue N. However, pedestrians and bicyclists still cross TH 252 at grade in this location because the bridge adds distance to their trip and access to the bridge is hard to find on the east side of TH 252. Noise In many locations, TH 252 is located in close proximity to residential properties. Residents are concerned about existing and future noise impacts from TH 252. Residents near the southeast corner of the intersection with 66th Avenue N have requested a noise wall be included in future improvements to TH 252. Cut-through Traffic Brooklyn Center staff, Brooklyn Park staff, and residents have observed cut-through traffic using neighborhood and collector streets to bypass traffic on TH 252. These streets are not designed to relieve traffic from TH 252. City staff and residents are concerned that cut-through traffic will increase as traffic volumes grow on TH 252. Tck Ve iis and Cogeer MnDOT 2030 Average Annual Daily Traffic (ADT) forecasts project traffic volumes between 53,000 and 79,000 ADT. Future traffic volumes are expected to be the highest between -694 and 70th Avenue N, and 73rd Avenue N and Brookdale Drive. Figure 2 shows forecast traffic volumes in the corridor. Forecast 2030 traffic volumes will continue to exceed the capacity of a four-lane expressway facility and will result in LOS E in the six-lane expressway segments. As shown in Figure 3, a four-lane freeway facility would accommodate the forecast 2030 traffic volumes at LOS D and E. A six-lane freeway facility would provide LOS C based on forecast 2030 traffic volumes. rd Recommendations As traffic continues to increase on TH 252, the traffic and safety issues outlined above will worsen. Crossing TH 252 will become more challenging for pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic noise will increase. Cut-through traffic will increase as drivers attempt to avoid congestion on TH 252. A four- to six-lane freeway facility is recommended to accommodate forecast traffic volumes and address existing safety concerns on TH 252. Page 13 ( : IL A -. -- I I. • • • Ifui F. - c ,rr H,/•: 1LIIPJI Z1 I ; Source: Metro Transit and pubLic comments received from ñrst and second open house I RM/IIIA Figure 6 5OOKLN j ei4 Corridor Issues Map ) ( BI,7&VTER _____ frnm 1-694 to TH6IQ TH 252 Corridor Suc1y GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION CRITERIA The following goals and objectives were identified to guide the TH 252 Corridor Study. The objectives of the ( study were used to form the evaluation criteria developed to guide alternatives analysis for the corridor. 00 S • Establish the long-term vision for TH 252 • Identify interim improvements to address existing congestion, safety, and neighborhood connectivity issues at the three intersections in Brooklyn Center (66th, 70th, and 73rd Avenues N) 0 e S • Identify expressway or freeway options for future vision • Identify interim safety improvements o Recommend interim mobility improvements • Identify improvements for pedestrian and bicycle crossings • Document proposed transit improvements • Recommend projects for future competitive federal funding programs • Develop recommendations for implementing interim and long-term improvements Vuiot Cevki Based on the identified goals and objectives, criteria were developed to help assess the alternatives. o Congestion/Level of Service: Ability to provide sufficient capacity for the existing and forecast volumes on TH 252 and cross-streets. o Safety/Crash Reduction: Ability to reduce crashes on TH 252. o Compliance with Design Standards: Measure of how well the design meets drivers' expectations and established design standards. • Construction Cost: Estimated construction cost based on need for bridges or tunnels, reconstruction of TH 252 mainline lanes, reconstruction of 66th Avenue and the construction of ramps. • Potential for Funding Grants: Potential for success in obtaining funding through STP grants or other similar programs • Right of Way Impacts: Measure of how much right of way impacts are anticipated. • Access: Measure of how many movements are preserved to/from TH 252. • Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity and Safety: Ability to improve pedestrian and bicycle crossings and safety at TH 252. • Development Impacts/Potential: Related to right of way impacts and access: alternatives with the least right of way impacts and best access are rated more highly. • Transit Service: Ability of alternative to accommodate transit stops on TH 252. • Compatibility with Long-Term Vision for TH 252: Measure of how compatible an alternative is with the long-term freeway vision for TH 252. • Neighborhood Connectivity Benefits: Ability to provide better connectivity between neighborhoods for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. • Environmental Impacts: Assumes that environmental impacts will be greater for alternatives with higher construction costs and greater right of way needs. Page 1 5 TH 252 Corridor Study LONG TERM VISION L©tj Iefru 'CW]'/ 4SS C©ps The long term vision for TH 252 is a freeway facility. TH 252 is designated as a Principal Arterial in the Metropolitan Council's 2040 Transportation Plan. The emphasis of principal arterials is on moving large volumes of traffic over long distances rather than providing direct access to land. Given the role of TH 252 in the regional transportation system it is not reasonable to divert traffic to other routes and attempts at reducing speeds through signing or other methods will only result in more congestion and a reduction in safety. A freeway facility would provide a safer facility and accommodate protected increases in traffic volumes on the corridor better, than the existing facility or other at-grade intersection alternatives. Existing safety issues would also he improved by a freeway facility, as most crashes in the corridor are rear-end crashes associated with traffic signals on the corridor. A freeway would also improve neighborhood connectivity by reducing delay and improving safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists crossing TH 252. There are currently six at-grade signalized intersections on TH 252, spaced approximately one half mile apart. Metropolitan Council spacing guidelines for urban freeways recommend that interchanges be spaced at least one mile apart. If TH 252 is converted to a freeway, it will be necessary to close access to TH 252 in several locations. A phased approach will be required to convert TH 252 into a freeway facility since it is not currently identified in the 2040 Metro Council Transportation Policy Plan or in the Minnesota State Highway Improvement Plan. The Brooklyn Center City Council has formally requested that the TH 252 freeway conversion project be added to these plans (see Appendix C for the resolution and letter to MnDOT). It is proposed that interchanges, overpasses, and pedestrian/bicycle bridges be constructed in stages as funding is available. Potential interchange locations were identified in the Technical Advisory Committee Meetings and in public meetings. MnDOT took this information and developed seven access concepts for the corridor for the purposes of modeling the impacts on local traffic. These concepts are shown on Figure 7. All of the concepts have a full interchange at 85th Avenue and Brookdale Drive in Brooklyn Park and no access to TH 252 at Humboldt Avenue. The options either show Humboldt Avenue closed or with an overpass. In Brooklyn Center the concepts include alternatives with full access at 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue, 73rd Avenue or at 66th and 73rd Avenue. If there is full access at 66th Avenue there will be no access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue. It will either be closed or have an overpass with connection to West River Road. With access at 66th Avenue there may also be access at 73rd Avenue. If the full access is located at 70th Avenue there would be no access at 66th Avenue or at 73rd Avenue. Transit The City of Brooklyn Center's long-term vision for transit on TH 252 is to enhance both the regional and local service from what is currently provided. Metro Transit plans to continue express service bus service on TH 252. It is expected that some park and ride users from communities north of Brooklyn Center will use the newly expanded park and ride on TH 610 and Foley Boulevard NW. Metro Transit plans to serve Brooklyn Center transit users by maintaining at least one stop on TH 252. It will be important to coordinate with Metro Transit to integrate transit stops into future interchanges and to enhance amenities. Page 16 Concept B Concept C TH 252 Existing AJ( , WAS 140 2),:- MSAS 145 AjOi EPMSAS 1) BC 5CMsAs1 WAS M5M 1i2 ILZ----__ -i 1 .1 KEY gr,IFd Itrth.n Fo =b.epiUo A Concept A rr r Concept F Concept 0 Concept H Concept U A Lr Figure 7 Corridor Access Options for Assessing Neighborhood Traffic Patterns CFWTER - - from 1-694 to TH6IO TH 252 Corridor Sudy INTERIM INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES IN BROOKLYN CENTER Several interim intersection alternatives were considered to address the traffic operations, safety, and neighborhood connectivity issues in the TI-I 252 corridor. Interim alternatives focus on options at the intersections in Brooklyn Center: at 66th, 70th, and 73rd Avenues N. The following sections describe the alternatives considered at each intersection. The interim intersection improvements idea was to focus on recommended projects that could be funded through various state and federal competitive funding programs and could be initiated within the next few years. The goals of these recommendations were that interim improvements would be consistent with the long- term vision of converting TH 252 to a freeway 'facility and not be "throw away" projects. YIü [' rVpS Alternatives Rejected A total of 14 interim intersection alternatives were developed for 66th Avenue N. Six alternatives were rejected based on concerns about the safety of the design and/or restriction of access for certain movements. The alternatives rejected are shown in Figure 8 and described below. 1.JTURN - The i-Turn alternative was rejected because it would provide insufficient capacity for future traffic volumes. It would also provide unacceptable access to northbound TH 252. 2.HIGH "T" This alternative was rejected because it would result in an unacceptable weaving distance on southbound TH 252 between 66th Avenue N and 1-694. 3. PARTIAL FOLDED DIAMOND A partial folded diamond was rejected because it would not provide access from northbound 1-94/TH 252 to 66th Avenue N. A. HALF DIAMOND This alternative was rejected because it would not provide access to 66th Avenue N from northbound 1-94/TH 252. It also would not provide access to southbound TH 252 from 66th Avenue N. 5.RELOCATE 66TH AVENUE: DIAMOND A diamond interchange located north of 66th Avenue N was rejected because it would result in an unacceptable weaving distance on southbound TH 252 between 66th Avenue N and 1-694. 6.RELOCATE 66TH AVENUE N: HALF DIAMOND This alternative was rejected because it would provide unacceptable access to and from TH 252. Page 18 tr ffl\ \' i ? I r - •A' r' (' \ I jjI - 1.J Turn Insufficient Capacity and unacceptable access to northbound TH 252 2.High T" Unacceptable weaving distance on southbound TH 252 between 66th and -694 3.Partial Folded Diamond Does not provide access from northbound I-94/TH 252 to 66th Avenue 4.Half Diamond Unacceptabl.e access 5.Relocate 66th Avenue: Diamond Unacceptable weaving 6.Relocate 65th Avenue: Half Diamond Unacceptable access Figure 8 Alternatives Rejected at 66th Ave.d4 from 1-694 to TH 610 TH 252 Corridor Study Alternatives Considered in Detail Eight of 14 alternatives for 66th Avenue N were considered in detail. These alternatives are shown on Figure 9 and are summarized below. 1.GREEN "T" WITH "J" TURN This alternative would provide right-in/right-out access on TH 252 at 66th Avenue N, as well as left-out access from eastbound 66th Avenue N to northbound TH 252. The green "T" with "i' turn alternative would not provide access across TH 252 at 66th Avenue N except for a pedestrian/bicycle underpass. 2.GREEN "T" WITH SOUTHBOUND FLYOVER The green "T" with southbound flyover would provide right-in/right-out access to TH 252. It would also provide left-in access from northbound TH 252 to westbound 66th Avenue N and left-out access from eastbound 66th Avenue N to northbound TH 252. This alternative also includes a southbound flyover that would bypass 66th Avenue N. The green "T" with southbound flyover would not provide access across TH 252 at 66th Avenue N except for a pedestrian/bicycle underpass. 3. FOLDED DIAMOND This alternative would provide full access to TH 252 at 66th Avenue N via ramps located north of the existing intersection. The folded diamond would provide grade separated access across TH 252 at 66th Avenue N. This alternative would require closure of access at 70th Avenue N. A. BUTTONHOOK The buttonhook alternative is similar to the folded diamond alternative as it would provide full access to TH 252 at 66th Avenue N via ramps located north of the existing intersection. This alternative would also provide grade separated access across TH 252 at 66th Avenue N. The configuration of the ramps on the east side of TH 252 is the main difference between the folded diamond and buttonhook intersections. Similar to the folded diamond, this alternative would require closure of access at 70th Avenue N. 5.QUADRANT INTERCHANGE This alternative would provide right-in/right-out access at 66th Avenue N. Access across TH 252 would be accommodated via an overpass located north of the existing intersection. 6.QUADRANT INTERCHANGE WITH ROUNDABOUTS The quadrant interchange with roundabouts is similar to the quadrant interchange alternative. It would provide right-in/right-out access at 66th Avenue N and an overpass located north of the existing intersection. However, this alternative includes roundabouts at the intersection of the existing 66th Avenue N and proposed overpass. 7.UNDERPASS AT 66TH AVENUE N An underpass at 66th Avenue N would route 66th Avenue N underneath TH 252. This alternative would not provide access to TH 252. 8.CLOSURE OF EAST SIDE ACCESS AT 66TH AVENUE N WITH PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE This alternative would maintain the existing signalized intersection at 66th Avenue N. It would close access on to and from the east side of TH 252. To address connectivity issues for pedestrians and bicyclists, this alternative would include a pedestrian and bicycle bridge. Page 20 1.Green "1" with "J" Turn . Quadrant Interchange 2.Green "T" with Southbound Flyover G. Quadrant Interchange with Roundabouts 3.Folded Diamond 7. 56th Avenue N Underpass 4.Folded Diamond with Buttonhook B. Closure of East Side of 66th Avenue N AfternaUves Considered in Detaftat 66th Ave. from 1-694 to TH6JO TH 252 Corridor Study Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Connections Pedestrian and bicycle connections across TH 252 are included in all alternatives considered in detail (shown in Figure 9). Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide access across TH 252 via a pedestrian/bicycle underpass. Alternatives 3-7 would include bicycle and pedestrian facilities (sidewalk and/or multi-use trail) as part of the overpass or underpass of TH 252. Alternative 8 includes a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over TH 252. All alternatives would improve safety and comfort for people walking and bicycling across TH 252. Transit There are existing far side transit stops on TH 252 at 66th Avenue N. Buses stop on the shoulder ofTH 252 immediately past the intersection. A park and ride is located on the southwest corner of the intersection (shared with the Regal Cinemas parking lot). Current transit stop conditions create safety issues for motor vehicles and transit users. Transit users must walk across TH 252 at grade to access at least one stop on their transit trip. There are sometimes conflicts between buses entering/exiting bus stops and through vehicle traffic on TH 252. The City of Brooklyn Center and Metro Transit would like to keep a transit stop at 66th Avenue N. If an interchange is pursued at this location, the city and MnDOT will have to further investigate options for providing convenient and enhanced transit service at this location. Metro Transit would prefer to keep bus stops on the mainline because exiting, and entering TH 252 would create unacceptable delay for transit users. 70Th Avue C\ Three alternatives were considered for 70th Avenue N, as shown in Figure 10. As noted in the discussion of alternatives at 66th Avenue N, access at 70th Avenue N would need to be closed if an interchange is constructed at 66th Avenue N. L Close 70th Avenue N and Provide Pedestrian Crossing This alternative closes access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue N and constructs a cul-de-sac west of TH 252. This alternative includes a bicycle and pedestrian bridge or underpass to provide pedestrian and bicycle access across TH 252. This alternative could be considered if an interchange was constructed at 66th Avenue N. 2.Underpass or Overpass This alternative includes an underpass or overpass at 70th Avenue N with no access to TH 252. The underpass or overpass would include bicycle and pedestrian facilities via a sidewalk and/or multi-use trail. This alternative could be considered if an interchange was constructed at 66th Avenue N. 3.Interchange An interchange at 70th Avenue N would provide full grade-separated access to and across TH 252. The 70th Avenue N overpass would include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Due to Metropolitan Council interchange spacing guidelines, an interchange could only be constructed at 70th Avenue N if access to TH 252 was closed at 66th Avenue N. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Connections All three alternatives would provide grade-separated access across TH 252 for pedestrians and bicyclists. Alternative 1 would provide a crossing of TH 252 separate from motor vehicle traffic. Alternatives 2 and 3 would include sidewalk and/or trail as part of an overpass of TH 252. Page 22 Option 2: Overpass or Underpass Option 3: Interchange '•: t Grade Separated • ' ., 1 Pedestrian Crossing ZA j fi*4 - ______ pz!11I_____-;, ,( J••, M!•iP :; • •' ' , njj Option 1: Close 70th Avenue N, provide pedestrian crossing Figure 10 BROOKLYNAlternatives at 70th Avenue N .cvr& from ?-694roTHoio TH 252 Corridor Study Transit There are existing far side transit stops on TH 252 at 70th Avenue N. These bus stops could remain if access is closed at 70th Avenue N, as long as sidewalks are provided to connect from an overpass to transit stops. However, this situation could create safety issues between vehicles and buses en t e ring/exiting the shoulder. Similar to 66th Avenue N, additional options will need to be considered to provide convenient transit service if an interchange is pursued at this intersection. Aveu N Two alternatives were considered for 73rd Avenue N, as shown in Figure 11. Due to Metropolitan Council interchange spacing guidelines, an interchange at this location could only be considered if access to TH 252 .1s closed at 70th Avenue N. 1.Half Diamond This alternative provides access to 73rd Avenue N from northbound TH 252 and southbound access to TH 252 from 73rd Avenue N. A half diamond at this location would be paired with half diamond at Brookdale Drive to provide northbound access to TH 252 and southbound access to 73rd Avenue N via a frontage road. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be included on the 73rd Avenue overpass of TH 252. As mentioned above, this alternative could only be pursued if access to TH 252 was closed at 70th Avenue N. 2.Overpass or Underpass An overpass or underpass could be considered if an interchange is constructed at 70th Avenue N. This alternative would not provide access to TH 252. Sidewalk and/or trail would be provided on the over p ass /underpass. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Connections Both alternatives would provide g rade-eparated access across TH 252 for pedestrians and bicyclists. Alternatives 1 and 2 would include sidewalk and/or trail as part of an overpass or underpass of TH 252. Transit There are existing far side transit stops on TH 252 at 73th Avenue N. There is a park and ride on the southwest corner of the intersection (shared with a church). As with 70th Avenue, these bus stops could remain if access is closed, as long as sidewalks are provided to transit stops. Additional options will need to be considered to provide convenient and enhanced transit service if an interchange is pursued at this intersection. Page 24 -' --I -7 -0. kL!c "i. Option 1: Half Diamond Interchange !.. •fl 7 • •... 1 AWVAr - - 10-i 4 I IC . r r I? ü' ..J:r1t ':ai! J 01:itioii :-': )veII)a5 or Underpass Figure 11 -)-cf L1 i4iAft ( ernatives at 7Bth Avenue N CVTER - from to TH6JO __________ TH 252 Corridor viItji© n 0. alternatives described above were evaluated based on the following criteria: • Congestion/Level of Service • Safety/Crash Reduction • Compliance with Design Standards • Construction Cost • Potential for Funding Grants • Right of Way Impacts • Access • Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity and Safety • Development Impacts/Potential • Transit Service • Compatibility with Long-Term Vision for TH 252 • Neighborhood Connectivity Benefits • Environmental Impacts The sections below describe the performance of the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria. Evaluation of 66th Avenue Intersection Alternatives The evaluation of the alternatives against the criteria is presented in Tables I and 2. Table 1 presents the evaluation in a rating relative to each criterion. The rating is from law to high with intermediate ratings of low-medium, medium, and medium-high. Table 2 assigns a numerical value of 0 to 4 to the rating, with 0 assigned to a low rating and 4 assigned to a high rating. The following discusses how the ratings were developed understanding that the ratings are generalized and not based precisely on statistical data. Congestion/Level of Service: This criterion measures the ability to provide sufficient capacity for the existing and forecast volumes on TH 252 and cross-streets. The alternatives are scored based on whether they are under capacity (the alternative provides more capacity than needed); at capacity, or over capacity (the existing or forecast volumes exceed the capacity that can be provided with the alternative). All the grade separated alternatives can provide sufficient capacity at 66th Avenue to meet the forecast demand. The "J" Turn intersection will not provide sufficient capacity to meet demand. The Green "T" intersection with "J" turn will provide sufficient capacity to meet the current demand but there will still be some back-ups on southbound TH 252 at 66th Avenue in the am peak hour. The Green "T" intersection with flyover will provide additional capacity by grade separating the traffic destined to 1-694. Page 26 Table 1: Evaluation of 66th Avenue and TH 252 Alternatives Alternatives Partial Grade Access Grade Separated at Grade Separation Closure at At-Grade Separation 66th Av 2/North of 66th Av 66th Av 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Quadrant Interchange Closure of Green "T"Green 1" with 58 Folded Quadrant with 66th An East SideEvaluation Criteria with T' Turn Flyover Diamond Buttonhook Interchange Roundabouts Underpass of 66th Av Low- Level of Service Low-Moderatel Moderate High High High High High Moderate Moderate -Moderate-Moderate-Low- Safety/Crash Reduction Moderate Low-Moderate High High -High High High Moderate Moderate -Moderate -Moderate-Moderate- Compliance with Design Standards High Moderate High Moderate High High High Moderate Construction Cost $2-$4 Million $11-$15 Million $17-$25 $17-$25 $8-$12 $8-$12 Potential for Regional Funding Grants High Low-Moderate High High Moderate Moderate High High Low- Minimize Right-of-way Impacts High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate-Moderate-Low- Access Low-Moderate Low-Moderate High High High High Low Moderate Moderate-Moderate- Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity/Safety 1/High High High High High High High High Moderate -Moderate -Moderate-Moderate- Development Impacts/Potential Low-Moderate Low-Moderate High High High High Low Moderate Transit Service Moderate Low High Love Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate-Moderate- Compatibility with Long-Term Vision forTH 252 Low Low High I High High High High Low Moderate-Moderate- Neighborhood Connectivity Benefits Low Low High High High High Low Low Low-Low- Minimize Environmental Impacts High Low-Moderate Moderate Moderate I Moderate Moderate Moderate High Total Score 27 18 34 331 3ZI 321 281 27 Alternatives are rated from low to high with a low rating meaning it does poor relative to the criterion and high meaning it does well relative to the criterion. Note that for construction costs, right-of-way impacts, and environmental impacts the alternatives are rated based ori how well they minimize costs or impacts. 1/ Assumes that a grade separated crossing will be provided at 66th Avenue for bicycles and pedestrians 2/ These alternatives assume that access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue will be closed. It is anticipated that a grade separation would be provided. 70th Grade separation not included in construction costs. Evaluation Criteria Scale Color Scale Low Low-Moderate I Moderate Moderate - High High 1Rating Scale oj 11 21 31 .2'- (aa)Al(a >E (a 4- o o E 0.24-' 4)- c a) a).9S- 4-. +- >= (a (a co 2a) a) o ._ (a4S 4-' (- a)(aa) (a s P - - 2 . o (a -o a) 4-' a) >. C —- 0 (a ai bD C 0 .0-C F <o a)o 4-' o C -o- 2(a 0 a) .0 4-' 05 -c N 4-' '- (a o NC a) t Lf) 4-' bO .9!a) C '±2 '3(a 0 a) 4-' (a a) 4-' o :p OJo-= EE a)0 3o co 9- a) -D - (a a)3 E .2o (a 4-' 4-'(a 4-' 4-' (aC'ai(U 4-' 4-'(a (a (a —a)GJ a)(a.2 E E:3 a) — -Z -1 N m 1 L S 4 4 I S S I I malJug TH 252 Corridor Safety/Crash Reduction: This criterion measures whether the alternative will reduce crashes at 66th Avenue and TH 252. Currently 65% of the crashes at this intersection are rear end crashes and 14% are side swipes. The traffic signal at the end of the freeway section, with weaving and other activities that demand the drivers' attention also occurring in the same area, is one of the primary reasons for rear end crashes. The weaving, which occurs in the section between 66th Avenue and -694, results in both side-swipe and rear end crashes. Alternatives that can eliminate the traffic signal will improve safety and reduce crashes. If the alternative can also increase the length of weaving sections or eliminate the weave altogether it will result in even greater crash reduction. Therefore alternatives are rated as providing either no crash reduction, low-moderate crash reduction (either eliminates signal in one direction or improves weave), moderate (eliminates signal entirely), high-moderate (eliminates signal entirely and improves weaving lengths), high (eliminates signal and eliminates or improves weaving lengths). Compliance with Design Standards: This criterion is a measure of how well the design meets drivers' expectations. Design standards are established to provide guidance on curves, grades, sight distance, weaving lengths, lane widths, and other project elements to provide consistency in design and a roadway that provides ample time for driver decisions. At this point in the design process it is assumed that in general design standards will be achieved. However, there are several design elements that are dependent on the spacing of access and the amount of right-of- way available. One element is the distance available for weaving. A minimum separation of 1 000 feet between on-ramps and off-ramps is desired. A second element is the consistency in access to cross-streets. Simpler access is desirable and a diamond interchange is the simplest type of interchange access. If frontage roads exist it is desirable for the frontage road to have a separate intersection with the cross-street a minimum of 300 feet from the ramp intersections. Scissors ramps (frontage road crossing an entrance or exit ramp) and ramps connecting directly to frontage roads are less desirable because it creates the potential for wrong way traffic movements and confusion on who has the right-of-way. It can also be confusing for way finding. Alternatives that result in less than 1 000 feet between on and off-ramps are rated low or low-medium relative to meeting design standards. Unconventional ramp configurations such as scissor ramps or buttonhook ramps were rated medium. More traditional ramp configurations that provided acceptable weaving lengths were rated medium-high or high. Construction Cost: There are three or four considerations that will have a major impact on construction costs including the need for bridges or tunnels, reconstruction of TH 252 mainline lanes, reconstruction of 66th Avenue and the construction of ramps. In general at-grade solutions will be the lowest cost; most likely in the $3M to $5M dollar range. However, because the at-grade solutions will eliminate the ability to cross TH 252 at grade a pedestrian bridge or tunnel will be needed for these alternatives. This would add another $1M to $2M in costs. The Green "T" with SB Flyover would have another $3M to $4M in costs and the High "1" intersection would have $5M to $6M more in costs. The other end of the cost range is the alternatives that construct an interchange on 66th Avenue in its present location. These alternatives would require either raising or lowering of TH 252 and the reconstruction of 66th Avenue in order to achieve the grade separation, maintain access and provide reasonable grades. That will make these alternatives the most expensive. Typical interchange costs are on the order of $1 5M to $20M dollars. Page 29 TH 252 Corridor Study In between the at-grade options and the interchange alternatives at 66th Avenue are the alternatives that ( construct a new bridge north of 66th Avenue. These alternatives will provide grade separation but do not require reconstruction of the TH 252 mainline or 66th Avenue. The new bridge can also be used for pedestrian and bicyclists crossing TH 252. The costs for these alternatives are similar to the partial grade separation alternatives. Therefore at-grade alternatives were given a rating of high (low construction costs) and the 66th Avenue grade separation alternatives were given a rating of low (high construction costs) with the other alternatives somewhere in between. Potential for funding Grants: The potential for success in obtaining funding through STP grants or other similar programs will be dependent on cost and how well the alternative addresses the evaluation criteria. Typical criteria used for these grants include measures related to congestion, safety, design standards and accommodation of other modes. Therefore the alternatives with the highest potential are the ones that score best in the first 4 categories. The cost of the alternative may have a greater impact on the funding potential than the other factors and therefore the high cost alternatives were rated lower. Riht-ofway Impacts: The two at-grade options should require very little if any right-of-way. The Green "T" with SB flyover could require some right-of-way along the west side of the flyover impacting existing parking for the gas station south of 66th Avenue. The High "T" intersection would have similar right-of-way needs to the at-grade intersections. All of the remaining alternatives will likely require the acquisition of both the gas station north of 66th Avenue on the west side of TH 252 and a home on the east side of 66th Avenue. There are some partial takes that will likely be needed with the folded diamond interchange. Access: The at-grade alternatives have the largest impact on access because they restrict through traffic on 66th Avenue and they restrict the left-turn in or left-turn out at 66th Avenue. The partial interchange options such as the half diamond interchange will provide less directaccess from and to the south at 66th Avenue while providing east-west movements on 66th Avenue. Access between TH 252 and the commercial businesses on the west side of TH 252 is one of the more important considerations for the City as it affects the value of this property as commercial property. Pedestrian/bicycle Connectivity/Sa f ety: It is assumed that a pedestrian/bicycle connection will be provided either through a separate pedestrian bridge or tunnel adjacent to 66th Avenue for the at-grade alternatives and that any grade separated alternative will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Therefore it is assumed that all of the alternatives would provide the desired pedestrian/bicycle connections. Development Impacts/Potential: The development potential of an alternative is related to the right-of- way impacts and access. Those alternatives that have the least right-of-way impact and the best access would be the best alternatives for development or redevelopment. Transit Service: All alternatives were judged the same at this time because it will depend on how transit facilities are modified to fit the alternative. The at-grade alternatives will still have some signal delay at 66th Avenue for transit while the grade separated alternatives may result in some changes in how service is provided. Compatibility with Long-Term Vision for TH 252: Long term it is clear that TH 252 needs to be a controlled access freeway in order to meet the traffic demands in the corridor. Alternatives that provide more of a traditional interchange at 66th Avenue will be more compatible with that long term vision. The alternatives that have a bridge north of the existing 66th Avenue could potentially be compatible with a Page 30 TH 252 Corridor Study freeway long term vision with some reconfiguration of the access to provide access similar to the folded diamond or buttonhook interchanges only farther north. Neighborhood Connectivity Benefits: The alternatives that provide grade separation for pedestrians and bicycles as well as vehicles provide better connectivity between neighborhoods than lust providing for grade separated movements for pedestrians and bicyclists. The at-grade alternatives and the partial grade separation alternatives eliminate through movements on 66th Avenue and would have negative impacts on neighborhood connections. EnvironmentalImpacts: It is expected that the environmental impacts should be relatively low for this project. In general it was assumed that the level of environmental impact would be proportional to the construction cost and right-of-way needs. That is, the alternatives that have a higher construction cost and right-of-way requirements would also have higher environmental impacts. S ] i D V P b'(D P-1 vc.ue Based on the evaluation described above, Alternative 3: Folded Diamond was selected as the preferred alternative at 66th Avenue N. This alternative provides the greatest safety and traffic operations benefits. While this alternative has the highest cost, it is compatible with the long-term freeway vision of TH 252 and has greater potential to receive regional funding grants for construction. This alternative would provide neighborhood connectivity benefits for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Page 31 TH 252 Corridor Study EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM ACCESS LOCATION ALTERNATIVES The analysis of the interim intersection improvements concluded that improvements that maintained an at-grade intersection at 66th Avenue would not address the existing capacity and safety issues and would be inconsistent with the long-term vision of co nverting TH 252 to a freeway. The preferred interim solution is a staged implementation of the long-term vision as funding is available. In order to stage the implementation of the long-term vision it is important to define the access locations to TH 252. Based on the Long-Term Alternatives previously identified there are four long-term alternatives that were identified for Brooklyn Center that were considered feasible alternatives. These are Concepts A, B, D, and F, which are shown in Figures 12-1 5. Options for access at 66th Avenue are shown in Concepts A and B (Figures 12 and 13). Concepts D and F have no access at 66th Avenue and either access at 73rd Avenue (Concept D-Figure 14) or at 70th Avenue (Concept F-Figure 15). Also shown on the figures are existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes and the 2040 forecast ADT associated with each alternative. Areas of right of way acquisition are also identified on these figures. MnDOT developed the 2040 ADT forecasts and also developed geometric layouts for the corridor to identify general footprints for each of the different concepts. This information was used to identify the potential right of way needs. MnDOT also evaluated the proximity of the 66th Avenue i n t e rchange to the 1-694 i n t e rchange and its impact on traffic operations. MnDOT documented their analysis and conclusions in a memo regarding the design of the 66th Avenue i n terchange. Based on this evaluation, MnDOT concluded that the location of this i n t e rchange would allow adequate distance between on-ramps and off-ramps to provide acceptable traffic operations. The benefits and impacts for each of the alternatives are summarized at the bottom of the figures and are discussed below. Table 3 provides a summary of the comparison of the benefits and impacts of the four alternatives. C©ip A Concept A has a folded diamond i n t e rchange at 66th Avenue and a Half Diamond i n terchange at 73rd Avenue. The access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue would be closed but a pe d es t r i a n/bicycle bridge would be provided to connect the east and west sides of TH 252. Benefits The primary benefits of this concept are: • If provides a safe grade separated crossing of TH 252 for bikes and pedestrians at 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue, and 73rd Avenue. • It will provide safe vehicle access to TH 252 at 66th Avenue and 73rd Avenue. Access at 73rd Avenue is only to and from the south on TH 252. • This alternative generally maintains existing traffic patterns in the neighborhoods. • It maintains the existing commercial property access to TH 252 and preserves the viability of these commercial businesses. o noise walls and screening for residential properties.The improvements would include Impacts The primary impacts of this concept are: o This concept will require acquisition of 2 to 3 properties on the east side of TH 252 and 4 properties on the west side of TH 252. o Traffic that uses 70th Avenue today would be rerouted to either 66th Avenue or 73rd Avenue. This is a relatively low volume. Page 32 TH 252 Corridor Study o This alternative does not provide access to northbound TH 252 at 73rd Avenue which makes access from the east side neighborhoods around 73rd Avenue very circuitous. Concept E Concept B has a folded diamond interchange at 66th Avenue and full access at 73rd Avenue. The access to TN 252 at 70th Avenue would be closed but a vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle bridge would be provided to connect the east and west sides of TH 252. Benefits The primary benefits of this concept are: • It provides a safe grade separated crossing of TN 252 for bikes and pedestrians at 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue, and 73rd Avenue. • It will provide safe vehicle access to TH 252 at 66th Avenue and 73rd Avenue (both directions). • This alternative generally maintains existing traffic patterns in the neighborhoods. • It maintains the existing commercial property access to TH 252 and preserves the viability of these commercial businesses. • The improvements would include noise walls and screening for residential properties. • The 70th Avenue connection to West River Road would provide an alternative access for the residential neighborhood on the east side. Impacts The primary impacts of this concept are: • This concept will require acquisition of 2 to 3 properties on the east side of TN 252 and 4 properties on the west side of TH 252 for 66th Avenue. • The 70th Avenue grade separated crossing would result in the acquisition of another 9 properties east of TN 252. • Traffic that uses 70th Avenue to access TN 252 today would be rerouted to either 66th Avenue or 73rd Avenue. This is a relatively low volume. Concept D has no access to TN 252 at 66th Avenue and full access at 73rd Avenue. A grade separated crossing would be provided at 66th Avenue for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. The access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue would be closed but a vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle bridge would be provided to connect the east and west sides of TN 252. Benefits The primary benefits of this concept are: • It provides a safe grade separated crossing of TN 252 for bikes and pedestrians at 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue, and 73rd Avenue. • It will provide safe vehicle access to TN 252 at 73rd Avenue (both directions). • The improvements would include noise walls and screening for residential properties. Page 33 TH 252 Corridor Study The 70th Avenue connection to West River Road would provide an alternative access for the residential neighborhood on the east side. Impacts The primary impacts of this concept are: • The 70th Avenue grade separated crossing would result in the acquisition of 9 properties east of TH 252. • Additional roadway easements would also be required at 73rd Avenue. • This alternative would result in significant changes in traffic patterns. Traffic volumes would increase on Dupont Avenue, on 73rd Avenue, and on 70th Avenue. Traffic volumes would also increase on West River Road south of 73rd Avenue, It may be necessary to widen 70th Avenue and 73rd Avenue to accommodate the increased traffic. • Traffic volumes will go down on 661h Avenue near TH 252 and the viability of the commercial properties in this area will be significantly reduced. Many of these businesses are dependent on access to TH 252. This impact will reduce commercial property values and tax base and may also be reflected in right of way costs for the project. Concept F has no access to TH 252 at 66th Avenue and full access at 70th Avenue. A grade separated crossing would be provided at 66th Avenue for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians. The access to TH 252 at 73rd Avenue would be closed but a vehicle and pedestrian/bicycle bridge would be provided to connect the east and west sides of TH 252. Benefits The primary benefits of this concept are: • It provides a safe grade separated crossing of TH 252 for bikes and pedestrians at 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue, and 73rd Avenue. • It will provide safe vehicle access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue. • The improvements would include noise walls and screening for residential properties. Impacts The primary impacts of this concept are: • The 70th Avenue grade separated crossing would result in the acquisition of 9 properties east of TH 252 and potential acquisition of an apartment building on the west side of TH 252. • Additional roadway easements would also be required at 73rd Avenue. • This alternative would result in significant changes in traffic patterns. Traffic volumes would increase on Dupont Avenue and on 70th Avenue. Traffic volumes would also increase on West River Road near 70th Avenue. It will be necessary to widen 70 11 Avenue to accommodate the increased traffic. • Traffic volumes will go down on 66th Avenue near TH 252 and the viability of the commercial properties in this area will be significantly reduced. Many of these businesses are dependent on access to TH 252. This impact will reduce commercial property values and tax base and may also be reflected in right of way costs for the project. Page 34 TH 252 Corridor (e©mniedci A Idemciflve Based on the evaluation criteria identified, an interchange at 66th Avenue N with full access at 73rd Avenue will best meet the access needs in the City of Brooklyn Center with the least impact on existing neighborhoods. All of the alternatives will result in some property impacts and changes in traffic circulation. However, Concept A or Concept B (without the vehicle crossing at 70th Avenue) would result in fewer property impacts and would not significantly change neighborhood traffic patterns. The strong preference of the public who provided comments on the alternatives was to lust close the access to TH 252 at 70th Avenue and not connect 70th Avenue to West River Road on the east side of TH 252. Full access at 73rd Avenue either directly to IFI 252 or through frontage roads or collector-distributor roads is important for the residential neighborhood east of TH 252 near 73rd Avenue. Recommended improvements to TH 252 in Brooklyn Park are pending further evaluation and consideration as part of the future TH 252 Freeway Conversion Study. Page 35 II- I II- I I I I EE II- E II- =F- E CL t-u 0Li .i\. KI rg n-fl II . < '•.0) o 0a) 0$c -J XF-. t Xe F- 0 I ' - 4cI tc F^'f ik 0-' I •.•'--• t;• I : •1 ; I) - , \ -p 4: c(jfl w:1 r;U 4 • 0 I .1 kr,. I (D c, \j, •I :. s:o .. (- XI-. E C - tt UIHull ! > E C 2 a) .- . C m CL cli aLL Li 898 E 8 i- -9 E AlK Al Gi 0LL U - Ifi I! rfl,^II A. il h C.) • E Ln LLCL LL U 000 00 .0 •1 •± eN C 0000)ONOC Ccuo 0-. 0 in B C (U -C) w> 0 C E •0 - C 0 u. 0 o000)0 UI 0) Q) (0) o N N • fo LflN 00r.1 C0 4) rn> LU 'I > I W COo a , . ^ E (0 C = 0--0)0) 50 0 C '4HHI e .12 o E'4a C C.0 .0 E 0) C (0 C (0 = ci 5m CC C 0) 50 C C (0a c 2 Eici 10 >. E .0 10 501 - I ci 2 0 C C (0010 '4 EC .50 0 SD 0 0 0as III 0 00 p a) C Ec 0 0)o --UcCf -SD SD 2ati 0E E - -0 S 0 '. 0 CI (I fl 4 C 0) I- Coj25t( C —SDr0 aE '4 - I I E 1111 III TH 252 Corridor Study ]id dafl The recommended alternative for TH 252 in the City of Brooklyn Center is a combination of Concept A and Concept B. This alternative includes a folded diamond interchange at 66th Avenue N, closure of access at 70th Avenue N, and o split diamond interchange at 73rd Avenue N and Brookdale Avenue N. It is envisioned that the half diamond interchange at 73rd Avenue N would be paired with frontage roads connecting to a half diamond interchange at Brookdale Drive. This alternative is compatible with the long term vision of TH 252 as a freeway facility. Recommended improvements to TH 252 in Brooklyn Park are pending further evaluation and consideration as part of the future TH 252 Freeway Conversion Study. This alternative is recommended because it is expected to result in the greatest safety and traffic congestion improvements. This alternative complies with design standards and has high potential for regional funding grants. It will preserve access to TH 252 at 66th and 73rd Avenues N and will provide improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity at 70th Avenue N. The interchanges at 66th and 73rd Avenues N will improve neighborhood connectivity as vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists will be able to cross TH 252 without the long delays experienced today. This alternative will also improve emergency response to the east side of TH 252. The preferred alternative will require right of way acquisition and result in impacts to some properties adjacent to TH 252. However, the impacts of this alternative are less than the other alternatives considered. An interchange at 66th Avenue N would result in fewer right of way and neighborhood impacts than an interchange at 70th Avenue N. An interchange at 70th Avenue N would impact homes as well as the apartment building on the southwest corner of the TH 252-70th Avenue N intersection. Traffic volumes will go down on 66th Avenue near TH 252 and the viability of the commercial properties in this area will be significantly reduced. Many of these businesses are dependent on access to TH 252. This impact will reduce commercial property values and tax base and may also be reflected in right of way costs for the project. Page 41 . .- PUBLIC INPUT 9(_ v(veEfet Public input informed the TH 252 Corridor Study process. Four open house meetings were held as part of the project. The first open house was held on May 21, 2014. The purpose of this open house was to present information on existing and future conditions and gather input on issues in the corridor. The second open house was held on February 10, 2015. The purpose of the second open house was to share alternatives for 66th, 70th, and 73rd Avenues N and present an evaluation of the alternatives. The third open house was held on April 2, 2015. The purpose of the third open house was to present and evaluation of alternatives for freeway access throughout Brooklyn Center and gather feedback regarding the alternative locations. Public comments received from the first three open house meetings are included as Appendix R. Following the third open house meeting, the City received a petition from the Riverwood Neighborhood requesting further opportunities for public input on the project (see Appendix D). As a result, the City planned and held a series of three meetings (referred to collectively as the fourth open house) to ensure that the public had an opportunity to review information about the project and provide well-informed feedback to the City. The fourth open house consisted of a series of three meetings on consecutive nights (January 26, 27, and 28, 2016). The purpose of these meetings was to present revised and refined corridor-wide concepts for access to TH 252 and to gather responses to a questionnaire from residents and business owners within the project area. A project website was maintained throughout the study process. The website included updates on upcoming meetings and materials from open houses. The website also included contact information for residents to share their comments or request additional information. (Lk ellvet Open House 1: May 21, 2014 Comments received at the first open house fell into the following themes. These comments were used to develop the issues identified in Figure 6 and were incorporated into the alternatives developed through the corridor study. • Funding: Many comments were received about the need to secure funding for improvements to the corridor. Residents urged the city to work with State Legislators and US Senators/ Representatives to obtain funding for this corridor. • Signal timing: Many residents commented that signal timing on TH 252 favors through traffic on TH 252 and makes it difficult to cross or turn on to TH 252. • Pedestrian crossings and transit: Several residents noted that it is very challenging to cross TH 252 on foot. Signals do not provide adequate crossing time for pedestrians, resulting in pedestrians waiting in the median as they are unable to cross TH 252 in one signal cycle. This is particularly challenging for people who are accessing transit stops on the opposite side of Park and Ride lots. •Enforcement: Several comments were received regarding the need to enforce traffic laws in this corridor. Residents noted that it is common to see vehicles running red lights on TH 252. • Sound mitigation: Several attendees were concerned about noise as traffic increases on TH 252. Residents near the intersection of TH 252 and 66th Avenue commented that existing noise walls are too short to effectively block noise from TH 252. • Issues with exhaust/air pollution: Several residents living adjacent to TH 252 commented that they are impacted by exhaust from vehicles, especially when traffic is backed up on TH 252. Page 42 TH 252 Corridor Study Messages about traffic conditions/delays in corridor: One attendee suggested that variable message boards be installed in the corridor to inform drivers about traffic conditions and delays in the corridor. Open House 2: February 10, 2015 The second open house provided an opportunity for residents to comment on the alternatives developed and the alternatives evaluation. These comments fell into the following themes and were addressed in the refinement of the preferred alternative. o Property impacts: Residents wanted more details on which properties and homes would be impacted by proposed alternatives at 66th Avenue N. Several residents were concerned that commercial property on the west side of TH 252 at 66th Avenue N was being preserved at the expense of residential properties on the east side. o Impacts to neighborhood east of TH 252: A resident raised a concern that the proposed frontage road (as part of Alternatives 3 and - Folded Diamond and Buttonhook interchanges) would encourage speeding through the neighborhood. One resident asked that a sound wall will be included in future projects at 66th Avenue N. Several residents were concerned about the impacts of an interchange at 66th Avenue N and requested closure of the intersection, with an interchange provided at 73rd Avenue N. a Alternatives evaluation: One resident raised a concern that the alternatives that were scored the highest (Alternatives 3 and 4: Folded Diamond and Folded Diamond with Buttonhook) benefit through traffic and not residents in Brooklyn Center. Several residents thought that preserving residential property on the east side of 66th Avenue N should be a higher priority than preserving and supporting commercial activity on the west side. • Safety at 73rd Avenue N: Several residents noted that there have been recent safety problems at 73rd Avenue N. If an interchange is constructed at 66th Avenue and the signal remains at 73rd Avenue N, the increase in traffic speeds south of 73rd Avenue will contribute to future safety problems at this intersection. A resident asked that improvements to 66th and 73rd Avenues N be completed at the same time so that there are not safety problems at 73rd Avenue N. • Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access: Residents were concerned with improving safety of bus operations on TH 252 and pedestrian and bicycle access across TH 252. • Next steps, agency coordination, and funding: Residents asked about coordination with Brooklyn Park, Metropolitan Council, and MnDOT. Residents also asked about timing of improvements to 66th Avenue N and whether property owners would be assessed for future improvements on TH 252. Open House 3: April 2, 2015 The third open house, which was held at the Brooklyn Center Community Center, consisted of a presentation focusing on preliminary access alternatives developed for the TH 252 corridor, along with an evaluation of these alternatives. There was substantial public comment in response to the presentation, and members of the public requested additional information regarding the alternatives, including details surrounding the geometry of potential interchange concepts, etc. As a result of the feedback received at this meeting, the city worked with MnDOT to conduct some analysis to determine how various interchange designs and other access concepts could be accommodated in the corridor. Page 43 TH 252 Corridor Study A part of this analysis, MnDOT also evaluated how various alternatives would affect traffic volumes on the road network surrounding TH 252. The results of these analyses were presented at Open House 4. Open House 4: January 26-28, 2016 As described above, Open House 4 consisted of meetings on three consecutive evenings. These meetings were held at the Brooklyn Center Water Treatment Plant. Over 2,000 invitations for these meetings were mailed to area residents and business owners based on geographic location. The materials presented at each of the meetings was identical and members of the public were welcome to attend any (or oil) of the meetings. Attendees at these meetings were invited to review four revised concepts for access to TH 252 and to complete a questionnaire regarding the alternative concepts, as well as the project in general. Seventy-one questionnaires were returned; the questionnaire and responses are included Appendix A, and responses are summarized below. • A large majority of respondents (61 out of the 66 who responded to this question) believe that there are safety and/or congestion problems at the intersections along TH 252. • When asked whether TH 252 should be a freeway, remain as is, or some other option, a majority (43) of those who responded said that it should be a freeway. Fourteen respondents suggested it should remain as is. • Of the four concepts presented at the meeting, more questionnaire respondents expressed a preference for Option B (1 9 responses), and Option A (1 7 responses) received the second-most responses. Twelve responses favored Option F, six preferred Option D, and five suggested that either Option D or F would be preferable. Thirty-six responses favored an option including access at 66th Avenue (A or B) and there were 23 responses favoring an option that would not provide an access at 66th Avenue (D or F). o Respondents were also asked which location was preferred for accessing TH 252. 73rd Avenue was mentioned most frequently by residents, followed by 66th Avenue, and then 70th Avenue. Several residents also mentioned that they prefer to use Brookdale Drive. o Most of the residents who filled out the questionnaire responded that improvements should be implemented in the next 3-5 years. Fewer responses indicated that improvements should be made in the next 5-1 0 years or beyond. NEXT STEPS The TH 252 Corridor Study led by Brooklyn Center will be complete in Spring 2016. The next steps in the TH 252 corridor will be led by Hennepin County. In 2016, Hennepin County will lead a study of the long-term improvement needs on TH 252. As part of this work, the County will coordinate with the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, MnDOT, and the Metropolitan Council. The study will take a more detailed approach for the TH 252 corridor and analyze traffic and neighborhood impacts of freeway conversion alternatives. It will also address timing and phasing of freeway conversion. if will develop detailed concept geometric drawings and layouts. In addition, the study will identify preliminary environmental impacts and mitigation. Page 44 Appendix A: Open House 4 Questionnaire and Responses City of Brooklyn Center Rev. J a nuary 21, 2016 Trunk Highway (TI-1) 252 QuestiOflfla 1.Which area do you live in? (See map on back) F Other - please describe A B C D E blems at the intersections along TH 252? 2.Do you believe that there are safety and/or congestion pro Yes No 3. Should TH 252 be a freeway similar to TH ioo, remain as it is (traffic signals, limited pedestrian/bicycle facilities), or is there another option that should be considered? Remain as is Other -please describe Freeway - o date, which option do you prefer? Why? 4. Of the alternatives presented/developed t None Other A B D F Why? --------------- none, please describe what you believe to be the best option: on would you prefer to use to access TH 252 in Brooklyn Center? 5. What street/access locati 73rd Avenue Other - please describe 66thAvenue 70' Avenue vements are needed, when do you think they should be implemented? 6.If you believe that impro 3 —5 years 5 - 10 years 10+ years No improvements needed elow (attach additional pages if necessary): 7.please provide additional comments b Please return by February 1, 2016, to the City of Brooklyn Center via email: ILCW l< or mail to: City of Brooklyn Center E n gineering Division, 6301 shingle Creek parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Thank you for your response! - -- P 2 WOODBINE LAWOODBINE AVE. N. CD 1^2NDA^Ei N1 . I; 72NDAV [^2^ZD AMY LA. T 72ND iverdal ParkZ Evergreen Pafk < Evergreen LL Ca:E 70TH AVE N Ttf EM 69TH. AVE. N. HnflflR zIU.LKLLI Liti E. N.L'i Ii\\ IiJ4uiAVE. N.<fl 111 Uj C2 Firehouse , 9 High School FREEWAY BLVD. Brooklyn L/fl Ld A65TV AV LL LL 01 U U64TH AVE,LLLULLLL4 0 // Ld \\ \\______________ 62NDhAVE. N. Public Works Engineer/ng January 21, 2016TH 252 Que Location Map 0 250 500 1,000 Feet I I I I I I a N Ca i) a a)a)a)G)a)a)a)a)a)U)>> a C'1c)C',c')Qc') a) U)a)a)a)a)a)a)co a)a)U)cooa)a)a)ccca)O)a) a c' Co Cl)Cl)NNN0 CO (0 00 0cu -Fu a) 0 C') ODEE '°E to 0 0 CLEE®°E 2a.a)C d ac0 00 .a)E3 a)76a)).c -= 0Q30a)a)a)Cl)Hfl fl!UH C0 LL commCD a CCD E E00 C')>,C))>C))(1)0))))(1)0)1))co co Lo r a a) a)C))a) a) C.2 000z z z C0 <0 000 <OWU) a C)) F-II Ia).Za)(°a)0 a) .0 u E020(33 N .2 0 "n 00 .0.0 to 0 0) a) 0) C,o C --0 (3) .0a) (33.5 0 :3 a)L,'-. 2 •))c C)a) (3) - .5o j < a) 'a) (0 (0 a)Ea) o a)a)>.>. (0 c i1 1a)ja).0 3 CDI 01 0 NI) Iü)la).. I 0 I'2II0)a) 0 NN LOa) E0 00 .00a)0.0 a)t3) a) a)5.0tKCD8 (33 a) c..cuW 0a) (3) N to '0 a) .5 U)333 cu 0 0 .5 0 (33 '00 0) 0 . j5 N -t3 N0 0 a)Z (33.0 (33 LL03-.CO oOCa)))) C)))a)a) ;a) .5 Ca)a)'- 3>. I I10°?c)C')Lb a)ga):30 :3'-0(33 :3: a)a)0 (0 0 (':30(0 N NC)' 0(330.E c, '2 .2Qa) a)'O >.a) .5.0 '3:E :3.5.0'.0 o'6 (0 --a)(0.Ea)2a)'E -5 .2 .2 00)'2(0O .5(0(0g-,5 a)_C2C .0 '290>3ij0t;a) 3 33<a)CL w(3)a)0a)9 '2 C) 2 0):3a)>.00 •" ga) osa) .0.0. -0) 0 ,5a) !ifl C) a) .0 (33NE 0.20a) Coo0Ea)CL 08 E0 '-'a)00)20a)2 ZN0,a).5 co2 (33a) 2(1)a)a)> 2a)a) 03 (0 01)3.1)())Lh (1) W a)a)a) C a):3>.00a)a)0j0a)CCa)a)0a)a) F ' 0 (0 C',C)(0 3")N ((0(C)30N N N '2t0 .a-.'a)0)0CC))E S :3 (33(33a)0 (3) >.a).o33a).021 3(30 a) 0 - o E'2 , - 0 a)'0 '- 0-U)h 2.'2'2a)'0. 0) > t o.2 00a)0 0a)s '2'0.-o--.0 -ECo 0-a)N0 0.0 8 --'2-00a) '2N0. 0 '-0-E0 a)a).0'0'-a)-"'20-o33a)a)a)a)C3- ((3 0a)(a)a) a)a)o a)00)0-a)'2 333'2ac.0a):300)-*-' 00- - a))))o.02a) (-. . - ..2a) 0a) (3->..0E:3E a)O'20-'0 a)0-.0OEo 0 3°5S'0Q'2 0a) Z N 0 <3:.5-:5C.3 <3: C) '0 Ha)0a) 0--a)1o)<'0a)O:31a).5oOa)a)I a)a)() I•'' 3 t I '00330 .5>t 4a)II ia)1.3):3OE:3 II S S. II' a)C9 a) 2 2IL ILLL a) a)a) a) a)a)>- I.), 2c'o to1<LL Lpcq Lo LL± a) I 0:3 C) C 0.a) a)C.2 Ca)0..CtC C) —0 Cc.3.c N -0.0C a)N. .0 .9 CC C 5 a)Ea):3a 0 c ca><75oa)0a)0a)0 0 a)C3 (0 o a)co cua)>)>.a)>a)N a) a)Ct)^to +CC)a to a)a) a)a)a)a)a) ^a)a) COa)CCWC C-a).0a)Ca)C U)<Ca(0OC2 a) <> o toa)CD c:.to C0 a)CL)to to to CL)N a)0 .0 a)a)co 0 )C a).0a).0.2-a).0 0 (0 .0(0 a) 0) C C a) .0 .0 _ 0 0.Cl)a) 2E ')-.0 0.c' 0C C •-C0 a).00 a)E 0 Co a)(0 C 0.CQ C.)0. 0 Cc)C 0 0. 0) 9 f a) Ca)0.a).913 0.a)Ea)U)C -a)Ca) CES 0 L)C(a a.QE0.Ca))<:E —Ca) 0.a)0a) ..-.0.05a) (a••Ja)(0toN(0 _oO..000,.0 C.9 1t a)a) a) C C .0 C0.0 0 :3a 0 cc) C a) I 2:1 E o 0EC"Coo(0 .0 c(a a)>Cca 0 a) CC a)>0E o a)a) co Na)>, Ca N co a)a) a CL Ea)U. .0 C a) 0) .9 (0 o.-C) a)Z a)),):3a ^.a)C0 —a)N .9 a) to toa):3 .0 o E 0) ('4 U) -c CC +o C —r2a)C a)Eo2 -ia)a)a))) C oC) E .a>Ca)ma)ED .0 a) C 0 CN C a)a).a >C C a)C) a) E 10 0 a)•OO>a)Ca)U0C) a) fE o c:2 c: o o °O)a)t2 0 2a)C)0a)22a)C... C C :j Q0O)C) =g000200._ 04 o5Cto a) a)a)O Ca)0.0o o .0a)5 a.2a)-a)0 a)00a)t)a)a).._a)ia)-.00 C) 0 0 .0 > .0 C 0 a) .0 CL a) a) ._0a) 0 - (Out ,C (),u a) C E a)a) a)a)uta)a)a)a)a)a) )_) )';>.to to tocoU) ----- ,a) usa)t a)a) C C2 CCC>Ca)a)a)a)a)O C CCa) a)a)> >> CCCa)a)>>ugLA < << 2 <<< o tO to N .0)tra)PC) - 2N o N co C)N N (0 (0 (0 (0 to coto N - 22.a)-o((C Ca).0 -Ca) .0 a)Ca) 5a))(a)ca ELo o C2 a)C C)2 .0 C0 (0C 0 C -.5; a C a)E .o ((a) WG).02 2C._a)Ca)2 u g a)cuO)a)'60((a)a)a)a)<O..a)a)C0E>..U-a)a_oo a) .010Ca)Ea)>.a)- C o a)a)a)C -0 a)a)a)C a)a) a)a)C a)a)a) oc 2 E EutCa)a)Ca) 111 a) al a)tt0Ea)0 a)0a)a)._a)a) 0 a)OO_0 0 .0 2- a) m a)m 5 - 0 ) <to a)o mm <<<<<to )-Z 2a)ca C)o C08 2Cu2 .9 tW -0Z Cu -.a)g a)a)2 2E Cf IN a)a)a)a)a) Vo- to 5E to W u--tf0C5=3_)7 O 0 U)a) CL U) CU) -o N o•C (U 3 U)a CL CL 02 .25U)C)U) C U)0 U)U)U).CCCC)E-rj0> 2 2 'LO to U)0ECE — LO 03 w I U)2U)– 6 U)2 -- 20U)0U)U) .QU)U)U)2(3?2.2 U)8U)I5 2– U) 8$ j^'EO> S 0 U) – U)5U)CS -.-'U)OU)Q o iIflfl .C2Et cU)5cUc U) U) 5 U) tU) U) 0_to U) (0 3 0 C) 2 • CU)U)U)o (0 0 2 U)(C U)Inç)•5N C 0 2 - çC >' °' 2Z-o > c 0U)U) o2 U)U)Sc to >jCU)U))JU)ND2 o0_LU U)U) NU)U)U)00 ('.t cu Q)6C.EU)2 j _U)U)u8s C 00 -°U)2 oil- o cm cu2ZF-U)U)•Q29c 3 CO S (O-U)C SCOOEU)50U)5 o.0 °E 0-0 o -5 0)02 .0 U)5 U) U)SEE U)O>U)>U)U) 555E•-• 0.0 .c: E(DU) U)U) C)5C 52 .2°5_02 o U)0_Z>U)5N toCU)U)U)40_SU)U)5U).U )U)2C1U) – U)0_0.0U)5$U)Cu•° U) U)tU.EU)-- -°E5 °.° <5•cu 03 0 EOU8 >*-->toU)NOU)NU)2 U) 2 .0 U) () U) .0 C •C - C) (52C.C)5CU)U)U)(UInCC)U)-U)U)0 U0 S.c U)E -U)222COU)USU)tUOC° t._ U) U) 0 0 C)3U) ° a-gsE°5 -U)cU)N.02U)O)StoON O S 8OU)<U)C 5E–o C.29-C - 2 - - .c > S 5 5 (022 c' o, ESEHOS.0_0_CC..OU) U)tU(U cmC 0)cu 0 za U) •0U) U)U) 0C) CC fl.E U)0U) 2 co 85U)U)E5,CLOU)>U).CU) o 5 3 •- 2 U) 01C)0.(U)In5U)U)2U) U).0 -o n2-oU)U)Coo.oC U)OO0C52S2CU).5O °3=3U) 0U) 0.-CC c CL CU)C) .0.0 °€' 1 C) 0C) 0_-. .._ C 2 5 2 8- -- C0) S.CU)5U)-,ct5 E -o00_U) o.CU)U)C-0J3U).0CU0 C5552I- 2 - -U)2U) U)2 U)C SLL U) LL 6 E C In EU)U) CICU)< U)>-U)>- a (Ut I- 0 C)Cl C)C)U) a Cl)U)ii a)a 00).a 0 a 00 a •9)a) 2t1 a)0)a) 0aoa)a Ea 0 0) o. N ^..,fla)0oaa aa) 0 aa)a)0)OI a)22 0=U a)U aa):9c)a) )L()a)Ioa)aocJacaa) aa)Oa)a) 0 oaa)Ej<a°IS 0•0 cj a-O2 a)Z to :rfilo'_JDa)(0 c0 a) a) a)> 0)a)a) a) a) a aa) 0N N a) a)E a) 0) a) 0 ca UDa) Ø0 a 2 a)o 0i a a)a) —CO a)0) 2 3ca)a)2 j 0)00 oaa I- .a£a)0)02a0UNE Qa)a)• a)00) oaa E 0 a)fla)00a)a)a)a) Na) Co 0)2 a) a o- >a) 0)0 a >a) E 0aa)0a)0^2E0)0)E aa)0 Oa) i2. 0)C) I°t O0a)aa -02 (ON a) I- .a0 t 0 I-a)0)a)a0)0)2^' (0a)a)aa)00)aD jaa)2 a o 0 -D a) (C)2 2 L 0 C) 0 Ea)Ca)0 I2 0 l(-E. 0 ca-a o a)a) E1110 1111 IIa) -U.,a ..0 a) C') C) Appendix : Other U.1 i CommentS. From: Steve LillehaU Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:45 AM To: jwiatrOs@COmCast.net ' Cc 'Tony Heppelmaflfl' Rose Ryan (RRyan@wsbencJ.COm ) Jack Corkle (Jc o rkle@wsheng.c0m); Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study Attachments: MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study Joe Wiatros.pdf Hello Mr. Wiatros, Thank you for your input pertaining to the TH 252 corridor. Your participation and input is very valuable and appreciate You taking the time. We will include your comments and suggestions as part of the formal report and for consideration in forming the final recommendations. Thank you. Regards, Steven L Lillehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer I City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 554302113 763.5693328 direct From Public Works Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7;52 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study From: ja mcasni cast,ne' Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:19 AM To: Public Works Cc: jveMoodnlb0rh00d.or Subject MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study Mr. Steve Lillehaug, As a resident of the Riverwood Neighborhood within the city of Brooklyn Center. I would like to Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study.Since living at 7238 Dallas for the past 20 years. There is not a day that goes by, were we are affected by either going on or crossing over Hwy 252. So we know firsthand how much 252 needs a serious upgrade. I am attaching a drawing from the state of MN from roughly 10 years ago. it shows the conversion from a signalized expressway to grade-separated freeway. I will be the first to admit, with any project there are always some downfalls. Such as access adjustments to business's or residence and property accusations. But this so far, is the best possible solution- It limits, but allows the best access on and off Hwy 252 safely. It also allows the best access across 252 for residents and businesses, either by vehicle or by pedestrians. Some people may think why not put an interchange right at 66. As a former traffic engineer, It is actually too close to feasibly transition traffic in a safe manner, between 66th and 694 interchange. With safety concerns being a driving force in this project. This is one mistake we cannot afford. As with any project and cost being a factor. A solution if needed, is to break it down into phases. Similar to Hwy 610 is being phased in or how 694 is being expanded between 35W and 35E. I unfortunately will not be able to attend the open house on 21 May. But these few ideas, I believe will help the residence and businesses of Brooklyn Center and the people who commute through the city. I am more than willing to be part of any further open discussions or panels Please don't hesitate to call or e-mail me. Joe Wiatros 7238 Dallas Rd. Brooklyn Center H 7635668651 iros@comcasnet 1I1 22 tconi 194 to 1 6 1 N ' U ti North x Ep CII - ' dN N -UN •0 f L 1 -ri 2 C Ij N ir N N 116 Steve Lillehau From:Steve Lillehau Sent:Friday, May 23, 2014 12:59 PM To:'penny@korstar.com ' Q.Steve Lillehaug Subject:RE: Hwy 252 Hello Penny and Dennis, Thank you for attending the TH 252 meeting and providing feedback. We will include your suggestion as a possible short-term solution for consideration in the study, Your input is greatly appreciated Thank you! Steven L. Lillehaug, PE, P1011 Director of Public Works/City Engineer I City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 5543-2113 763-559-3328 direct From: Public Works Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:58 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: PW: Hwy 252 Importance: High From: Penny Korkki [mailto:pennykorsr.com} Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:55 PM To: Public Works Subject: Hwy 252 My husband I)eimis and I were at the public meeting last evening but had to leave early for another commitment. We would like to have our biggest concerns about the Hwy 252 corridor heard. While we can all agree that the optimal safety and congestion issues could be best aliviated by a freeway approach, it seems that some incremental steps could be taken NOW. Our number one concern is the safety of the 252/66th Avenue intersection. We have seen countless vehicles blow through that intersection over the years (we've lived in the Riverwood Neighborhood for 19 years). It was a daily reminder to our high school children to "watch out for that intersection' every time they left home. We are also compelled to warn our friends and family to beware as they leave the neighborhood. Each of us has witnessed accidents there over the years and have had our own near misses. The traffic coming from 194 onto 252 is of the most concern. Those exiting off of 694 have had to slow down in that process but those going north onto 252 from 194 may have been traveling in excess of 70 miles an hour just moments before encountering the intersection. While there is a static sign warning of an upcoming traffic light, it seems that a more obvious solution to improve the safety of that intersection would be a flashing light sign asking drivers to be prepared to stop. Thank you for seeking our input. Penny a,,dDe,,nv Korkki penaykQrr.eom Steve Lillehau From:Steve Lillehaug Sent:Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:59 PM To:mcpowles@comcast.net ' Cc:Steve Lillehaug; Julie Hanson Subject:150211Powles commentsjH 252 study Hello Mr, Powles, Thank you for your attendance last night and your comments. They have been well received and we will be taking a look at an option as you propose below. Safety is of the utmost importance and I appreciate your comments towards this. Stay tuned and will provide further info in the near future. Thank you! Steven L. Lilfehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer j City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 554302113 763569-3328 direct I slflJcL bra QiflCerkf.fl1P From: Public Works Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:52 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW; TH 252 study From: Michael Powles [mllo:ijJOWleS@CQJtJif] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 2:33 PM To: Public Works Subject: TH 252 study Steve, I attended the open house last evening for the TH 252 study. I found the information helpful. 1 heard a proposal from an audience member about closing the east side access to/from TH 252 and a remark that MnDOT would probably give that proposal high consideration. I feel this is a very bad idea. I live on the southeast corner of TH 252 and 68th Avenue, If the east side access at 66th were eliminated there would be only one point of entry or exit for the Riverwood Neighborhood, that being at 73rd Avenue. With only one access point for a neighborhood approximately ten blocks by three blocks I feel it imposes a potentially dangerous scenario for emergency vehicles. If a significant incident occurred at the 73rd intersection, everyone living in the neighborhood, as well as access by emergency vehicles, would be cut off. It would also impact a few blocks north of 73rd in Brooklyn Park. As an alternative to that proposal I would suggest making 66th a bridge across TH 252 with no access to the highway (at least on the east side). This would allow the neighborhood to continue to have alternative access as well as facilitating better flow for emergency vehicles. I would rather see us lose access to TH 252 to/from the east side of the highway while having cross-highway access than to completely shut off all east side access to 66th. Thank you for considering my opinion. Michael Powles 6555 Riverwood Lane Steve Lille aug From: jwiatrostcomcast.net Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 10:41 AM To: Steve Lillehau9 Cc: Tim Willson; Dan Ryan; Un Myszkowski; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; April Graves; chrisecsenate. mn ; david.grosssenate.mn Subject: MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study Open House #2 Comments Attachments: Folded Diamond.JPG; 252. Northbound 1100' 0.21 mile.JPG; Southbound 252 525'0.10 mile.JPG; final.2008,.203Q.tsp.1181.pdf; 252 & 66th street stationJPG Steve, Open House 42 was sure appreciated by the citizens of Brooklyn Center. I am writing in my additional comments of the MN 252 Corridor Study. Since at the meeting, I believe a majority of citizens did not care for any of the ideas that were presented for multiple reasons. Let me bring one of the most important safety oversights, if any new interchange was used at 66th and I will use one of your most liked interchanges, #3 folded diamond as an example. If I am northbound on 252 coming from down town. In order to exit to 66th, 1 will need to get over to the right into the merging lane coming in from west bound 694 and then assuming a deceleration ramp for the 66' interchange. The area to do this in is only 1100' or less than a quarter mile approximately. This next portion is even worse and this side carry's the most traffic. Let's say I want to get on at 66th from this interchange and go to downtown on 94. I need to merge over from the entrance ramp, get over two lanes. Because that first lane has exiting traffic to 694 east and west, 100 south and 94 west. This has to be done within only 525' or 1/10 of a mile approximately. The idea of any interchange at will still have the same safety problem that exists today, that's is vehicles weaving and merging into traffic in a small area. I highly suggest that the city approve and move forward with what the state of Minnesota has proposed in the past multiple times. Which would mean an overpass only at 66th. See final 2008 2030 tsp.pdf. This will allow vehicle and pedestrian traffic to travers over 252 safely. As I mentioned at the open house. What about on the overpass location for a bus stop/station, similar to the one on 35W. See 252 & 66th street station.JPG. Remember there are a lot of parka nd ride patrons, plus local residents that get on and off the bus at this location. am more than willing assist and help with the design inputs if needed, for the city, on any 252 plan. Very Respectfully, Joe Wiatros 7238 Dallas Rd. 763-566-8651 Ph ii x j 1 r._ .yv I I • I 1 i*1 t' •____ ! : kit I ••' I • I • .•. •.•. 0'•"• 4 -t, XiA,*t.1 _____ ' \ 4.J1I \ - ri- Pq j til ••;• - tv ::t 'I ••I - -'-4.--- .•,'' .1l)';I I ', I p - t!Illbl,M I • I; • .- 1III' .•• 14I i 1 19 EL ____ )••\( •. I -; \\ I-iIT I I / !i-:.l - -- - o 0 O ? )'0 :3 wILaIJ "-c 4.M cS b o> - III 252 from V)?I to TI-I 610 to ir- NorthI t ,fl 1 (-4 çq ç'i C " C U - Li d •- It,) ) II U I II d abV (l k x t Q = I. •IJ -U 1 , c-4 It) EC'I (1? zIu U t)P 0.w—'0 ) U2 - - 0 •D•00is 0 - .. 116 Steve Ullehaug From; Steve LUlehaug Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 5:02 PM To; 'mmariscal@realtyineorfl6.COm Cc: Public Works; Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmerica, Brooklyn Center, MN (RI #2769) Attachments: 150312Sun Post Ad for Open House 3 Mtg.doc Hello Mayra Mariscal, In response to your Inquiry below, I offer the following: A V open house Is scheduled for April 2, please see the attached notice. Direct mailings to property owners for notice of this meeting are being sent out next week. Also, for background information, please see the City's website at www.cityofbrooklynceriter.org (Search TH 252 CorrIdor Study). I hope to see you or your representative at the open house to further our discussions about this potential project. Thank you. Steven L. Lillehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer I City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 554302113 763569-3328 direct I From: Public Works Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:27 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmerica, Brooklyn Center, MN (RI #2769) From: Mayra Mariscal [mato:mmariScal@j1.iflCQmeComI Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:24 PM To: Public Works Subject: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmerica, Brooklyn center, MN (RI #2769) Good afternoon, Mr. Lillehaug. Realty income Properties 3, LIC is the owner of a SuperAmerfca facility located at the intersection of 66th Ave N and IH 252, We received notice of the Corridor Study currently underway looking at alternatives to alleviate the traffic problems along TH 252. Since the location of Our property is at one of the main problem intersections, I would appreciate receiving any additional information you may have that can assist us in analyzing and determining the potential impacts to our property. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Mayra K. Mariscal Manager, Condemnations and Easements Realty income Corporation NYSE "0" 11995 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 P - 858284.5167 This email may contain material that is confldentia1 privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole Use ofthe intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission Is strictly prohibited, If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Steve Lillehaug From: Mayra Mariscal <nimariscal@realtyinCOme,C0m> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 9:53 AM TO Steve Lillehaug Cc: Public Works Subject: RE: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmerica, Brooklyn Center, MN (RI #2769) Thank you, Mr. Lillehaug. Unfortunately, our office is located in CA so it unlikely that a representative of our company will be able to attend the hearing. However, a tenant representative may elect to attend. appreciate your assistance. Mayra K. Mariscal Manager, condemnations and Easements Realty Income corporation (NYSE "01 11995 El Carnino Real, San Diego, CA 92130 www.reaIyflc.ç9tU (0)858-284-5167 1(F) 858481-4861- From: Steve Liltehaug Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:02 PM To: Mayra Mariscal Cc: Public Works; Steve lillehaug Subject: RE: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmerica, Brooklyn Center, MN (RI 2769) Hello Mayra Mariscal, In response to your inquiry below, I offer the following: A 3' open house is scheduled for April 2, please see the attached notice. Direct mailings to property owners for notice of this meeting are being sent out next week. Also, for background information, please see the City's website at www.city of b rooldyftcLei1tX.Prg (Search TH 252 Corridor Study). I hope to see you or your representative at the open house to further our discussions about this potential project. Thank you. Steven L Lillehaug, FE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer I City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113 763-569-3328 direct From: Public Works Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:27 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject FW: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmeriCa, Brooklyn Center, MN (RI #2769) From: Mayra Mariscal 1mjlto:mmariScal real income-colD) Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:24 PM To: Public Works Subject: TH 252 Corridor Study, SuperAmerica, Brooklyn Center, MN (RI #2769) Good afternoon, Mr. Lillehaug. Realty Income Properties 3, LLC is the owner of a SuperAmerica facility located at the intersection of 66th Ave N and TH 252. We received notice of the Corridor Study currently underway looking at alternatives to alleviate the traffic problems along TH 252. Since the location of our property is at one of the main problem intersections, I would appreciate receiving any additional information you may have that can assist us in analyzing and determining the potential impacts to our property. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thank you. Mayra K. Mariscal Manager, Condemnations and Easements Realty Income Corporation NYSE O" 11995 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 P 858.284.5167 this email may contain rnatril that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the Intended recipient, Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Steve Li!1ehau From: Public Works Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 12:21 PM To: Steve Liflehaug Subject: FW: TH 252 Corridor, attn Steve Lillehaug Attachments: WUlson3-2045docx From: sandrawillowlane.net Sent: Friday s March 27, 2015 12:17 PM To: Public Works Subjett: TH 252 Corridor, attn Steve Lillehaug Good afternoon, I om unable to ottend the open house on April 2. That is Moundy Thursday and I hove on obligation at church. Attached is a letter sent to Mayor Willson regording this matter. Pleose give it your consideration. Sandra Anderson 1 Sandra J. I 7112 Willow Lane Brooklyn March 20, 2015 Mayor Tim Willson Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mayor Willson, I recently attended an information meeting about the city's proposed plans for 252. if I understood correctly the northern suburbs want 252 to become a limited access roadway to allow for a faster commute time. I believe that this proposal needs further study for the following reasons. As a city sitting on the shores of America's greatest river, I believe we have an obligation to do whatever we can to protect and preserve the integrity of this wonderful natural resource. The plans that I saw propose to build extensive ramps and overpasses at the very point where there is the least distance from the river to the highway. Brooklyn Center went to great trouble during our road renewal project to provide for rain gardens and giant concrete spirals in the road bed to try to help clean runoff water before it gets to the river. Building extensive roadways that close to the river will damage wildlife and dramatically increase air, noise, land ) and water pollution. I believe that our elected and employed city officials have a fiduciary and fiscal responsibility to the citizens of Brooklyn Center. I am guessing that for tax purposes Riverwood is the highest valued neighborhood in the city and that the houses actually on the river are, forthe most part, the highest valued. It makes no fiscal sense to me to destroy many of the highest valued homes and substantially devalue the rest. This little gem of a neighborhood would quickly lose its cachet and drop to one of the lowest valued and the taxes would drop with it. The safety concerns with this proposal are legion. How will first responders have access to the neighborhood? It is dangerous to have two interchanges so close together. The proposed plan is less than a half mile from the 94/694/252 interchange. Cars, walkers, bikers, dog walkers and stroller pushers currently use West River Road. That will not be possible if it becomes a frontage road for 252. I would like to add that I am lucky enough to live in Brooklyn Center, I am lucky enough to be able to live right on the river and, so far. I am lucky enough that this proposal would not take my house. I consider the plan ill advised and thought out. Please develop alternatives. Best regards, Sandra Anderson cc: elected officials 7635607978 sandra@willlowlane.net Steve Lille au From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 2:35 PM To: Christopher, Steve (BWSR) Cc: Judie Anderson; ematthiesen@wenck.com ; Steve Lillehaug Subject: RE: Mississippi River Issues Attachments: 252 Corridor.pdf Hello Mr. Christopher, Thank you for the information. Yes, a study is underway. Currently the study is at the highest level and will involve the water resource agencies in due time. All the typical requirements, environmental documentation, and appropriate mitigation/preservation components as applicable will be addressed in the future should we get to the point to proceed with the planning of this project. If you have questions, please let me know. Kind regards, Steven L LiUehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer I City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Centr, MN 55430-2113 763-569-3328 direct j slillehaugi.brooklyn-center.mn . us From: Christopher, Steve (BWSR) Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 10:36 AM To: Judie Anderson; Steve Lillehaug; entth.ea@wck.com . Subject: FW: Mississippi River Issues )mportance: High Judie, Steve and Ed, I was forwarded the message below by Matt Moore of the South Washington Watershed District. He said there is a problem with the MAWD site. if I can provide any education/assistance on the structure of water management I would be happy to, but feel that this is best left to the City and the WMO. Let me know if I can help out Steve Christopher Board Conservationist MN Board of Water & Soil Resources Direct: 651-296-2633 Cell: 651-249-7519 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 www.bwsr.staternn.ils From: Greg and Kelly Tomsche 1rn4ilto:gktgrnsche@inncpm] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:49 AM To Moore, Matt; dinne.rgdermacher@nin.ncdnet.net Subject Mississippi River Issues Importance: High Mr. Kevin Bigalke and Ms. Dianne Raderniacher I live in the Riverwood neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. I am not sure if you are aware but they are looking at making big changes to the 252 Corridor. This includes doing major construction at the intersection of 252 and 66th Avenue. I am writing to you because the neighborhood is VERY CONCERNED about the proposed project and the impact on the river area in that area. They are considering in preferred option one, taking out homes and putting in a full interchange at that intersection, This is going to move freeway traffic closer to the river. I have included an attachment of what they want the interchange to look like. You can see that it is moving traffic dangerously close to the river. The Riverwood Neighborhood is against this option, but the city does not seem to care. We just wanted to make sure that you are aware of what they are proposing. If you could look into this we would be greatly appreciate it! Thank you for your time. Best regards, Kelly Tomsche 2 Steve Lillehaug From: Curt Boganey Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 4:08 PM To: Dan Ryan; John Hilçjren Subject: RE: TH 252 to be discussed at next Council Meeting? Attachments: City Manager Curt Boganey.vcf Mr. Hilgren, I do not expect that this matter wilicome before the Council for action before the month of May. The first regular meeting in May 11th the second meeting is May 26th. 2015. If you submit your comments in writing to me they will be provided to the Council as part of the official record. Cornelius L. Boganey -----Original Message- From: Dan Ryan Sent: Tuesday, April 07,-2015 11:27 AM To: John Hilgren Cc: Curt Boganey Subject: RE: TIl 252 to be discussed at next Council Meeting? Dear Mr. Hilgren, Thank you for contacting me about the proposed plan for an upgrade to the Highway 252 crossing. I am not certain when we will be considering a resolution on 252; but I expect that it may go to the city council at the April 13th meeting. I will forward your email to the city manager; he can inform you as to the date that it goes before the city council. Certainly you can send your comments/concerns to me and to the other council members or to City Manager Curt Boganey at any time. City manager's email: cbogafley@cthroQldyfl-center.rnn..cL Typically the city council receives the meeting packet on Thursday afternoon, before the Monday meeting. The only restriction on public comment is the long standing rule for "Open Forum with the City Council", (held at 6:46 p.m., during the Study Session prior to the formal meeting). The council cannot accept comments at Open Forum on any agenda item scheduled for that meeting any other topic is acceptable. However, before any action on a resolution for 252 is taken there will be a hearing and sufficient time will be given for public comment at that hearing. If you have further questions or comments, don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dan Ryan City of Brooklyn Center Councilmember 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 City Hall Phone 763-569-3300, City Hall Fax 763-569-3494 Voicemail 763-569-3445 Home 763-535-4177 councilmemberryan@ci.brooklyn-center.mn .uS From: John Hilgren [johnhilgren@gmail.com ] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:06 AM To: Dan Ryan Subject: TH 252 to be discussed at next Council Meeting? Hello Council Member Ryan, Thank you for attending the recent public meeting to discuss options to renovate TH 252. I am wondering if the renovation plans will be on the agenda for the the City Council meeting on April 13. Please advise. If yes, I would like your advice on the various ways to offer my opinions on this matter to the City Council. For example, would the Council consider a written statement? If yes, how far in advance would you like the written information? Will there be an opportunity for public comment at the April 13 meeting? Best regards, John Hilgren 6720 Willow Lane Brooklyn Center, MN Steve Lillehaug NESEEMMMMOMMMM From: David Berg <davidwrightherg@hotmail.com > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1124 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: Friday meeting. Sent from Windows Mail Thanks for meeting with me Friday afternoon. Hopefully some good came from it regarding the TH 252 project; After I left I was thinking over what we talked about, and I remembered something I had thought about but didn't suggest. Regarding the staging of the lowering of 66th, and the maintaining of traffic on the mainline, remember the Bailey Bridge, if you haven't already thought of it. Thanks for the pending permission to get a permit to connect to the storm sewer by the end of the gidley at Willow Lane. That will solve a dilemma that has been worrying me for several years. Sincerely, David Berg 763 2033851 Steve Lillehaug, From: Steve Lillehaug Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 4:13 PM To: wiatros@corflca5t.Uet' Cc: Curt Boganey l Steve Lillehaug Subject: MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study Comments Hello Mr. Wiatros, Thank you for your comments. We are continuing the efforts in our evaluation and study in 'response to additional feedback received at Open House No. 3, both pro and con for all options. I assure you that safety is a very important driving factor behind the TH 252 initiatives but cost benefit, route impacts and trip redistribution, mainline weaving on TH 252, along with many other factors are important components in obtaining the correct balance for the future of this corridor. Your feedback and comments will be included as part of the report and considerations as we proceed. Please contact me with any questions. Respectfully, Steven 1, Lillehaug, PE, PTO Director of Public Works/City Engineer j City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113 763-569-3328 direct I From: {fl1JJjQjiatros)COmcaSt.net1 Sent Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:59 AM To: Steve Lillehaug Cc: Tim Willson; Dan Ryan; Un Myszkowski; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; April Graves; chrise,sente.mn; lavid.gr0sS!T!n;nerState.iThiiA3; pat.bur$awstate.mn.uS Subject: MN Hwy 252 Corridor Study Comments Mr. Lillehaug, As Open House 43 for the TH 252 Corridor Study is now completed and you are about to recommend to the Brooklyn Center city council your recommendation for a plan. Which is putting a folded diamond at 66th ave. This concept is one of the most unsafe ideas when dealing with highway traffic. Under this idea, let's say I want to get on at 60 ' from this interchange and go to downtown on 94.1 need to merge over from the entrance ramp, get over two lanes of traffic. Because that first lane has exiting traffic to 694 east and west, 100 south and 94 west. This has to be done within 525' or 1/10 of a mile. The concept of any interchange at will still have the same safety problems that exists today, that's is vehicles weaving and merging into traffic in a small area. In addition this would occur with ramifications as traffic going north bound from downtown wanting to exit in a very short area. Let me remind you who the overall majority of people been at every open house, residents that own homes and out of those residents. A majority from the Riverwood Neighborhood. I never heard /seen from any business owners or rental owners. Every resident that was there, from who was voicing their opinions. Opposed to the 66 interchange idea. I recommend the city approve and move foward with a concept of using 70 1" aye, 73'd ave or both as interchanges along MN Hwy 252. Which would mean an overpass only at 66Ih• By having the interchange(s) at 70th! 73rd ave, it might cost more because of land acquisition. But people will be able to enter and exit this future freeway in a safe manner. Otherwise correct me if I am wrong, safety is being outweighed by Cost and convenience? Very Respectfully, Joe Joe Wiaitros 7238 Dallas Rd. 763-566-8651 Steve Lillehau From: Curt Boganey Sent: Mondays April 27, 2015 5:03 PM To: Steve Lillehaug Subject: FW: Highway 252 Corridor Study FYI —0riginal Message---- From: Dan Ryan Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:32 PM To: Curt Ooganey Subject: FW: Highway 252 Corridor Study Dan Ryan City of Brooklyn Center Councilmember Home 763-5354177 counciirnerirrVP.cii..rO From: William D'Amour (wdamour@comcaSt.net ] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 2:17 PM To: Dan Ryan Subject: Highway 252 Corridor Study Greetings1I am very upset about tonight's agenda to indicate Brooklyn Center's support for Steve Lillehaug's and the Corridor Study team's recommendation regarding Highway 252, especially the part that supports a major interchange at 66th. I have attended two of the three forums. At the last one, I spoke directly to Mr. Lillihaug and to you (You gave me your card.) and requested that the Study Group take more time and specifically include some key residential leaders from Brooklyn Center. There has been no sustained meeting to discuss this corridor study with residents. The type of forum that has been held is not conducive to comprehensive discussion that looks for broad solutions. I further noted that lam very familiar with the concepts of successful "change strategies" and that all of them indicate that, if local stakeholders are not part of the planning, it will lead to an unsuccessful resolution. 1 also note, in checking with the Brooklyn Park municipal website that they currently have no plans at all to propose However, Mr. Lillihaug assured us that Brooklyn Park was part of the Corridor Study Team. I don't see anyplace where their involvement or their support for these plans is actually documented Please know that this issue is of such importance to me that, if the Brooklyn Center City Council ignores the Riverwood Neighborhood Petition that will be presented tonight, I will personally become very involved in the next election campaign. Sincerely, William (Bill) and Mary Valjean D'Aniour 7118 Willow Lane 763226-7824 Steve Lille From:Public Works Sent Tuesday, August 18, 2015 1:39 PM To:'Nicole McCormick; Public Works Subject RE: Highway 252 Hello, Thank you for your inquiry pertaining to Highway 252 planning. The corridor planning is continuing and stakeholder meetings will be scheduled in the upcoming months. Our current study is showing that Highway 252 would be converted to a freeway which basically would consist of removing the traffic signals and constructing bridges/interchanges at select locations (yet to be determined). This Is the point we are at currently, trying to determine collectively where the bridges and interchanges will be located. I expect that through the freeway conversion plan, there will be property acquisitions that will occur. Which properties that would need to be acquired remains to be determined and is dependent on the types of interchanges/bridges/access at each location. You can visit the follow website for the current information: http:f/www.ci.broo klyncentermgj ,keyword search TH 252 You will be notified directly when our upcoming meetings are scheduled. Thank you Steven L Lillehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer j City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 554302111 3 7635693328 direct I From; Nicole McCormick [niailto:nnccormickbeins.mi.11er.Cp1J Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:08 PM To: Public Works Subject: Highway 252 Mr. Lillehaug: I'm a resident that lives off of Dallas Road in Brooklyn Center. I recently heard that it is a "done deal" and that Holiday station will be gone, houses torn down, and an overpass going in. Would you be able to enlighten me on this subject? If you are not the correct person, would you be so kind to point me in the right direction? BERENS MILLERL Nicole McCormick Berens & Miller, P.A. 3720 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 612349-6171 WARMING: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the above-identified recipient. Do not ready distribute, or reproduce this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, please forward this transmission to the author and delete all copies. Thank you. Steve LiHehau From:Steve LiHehaug Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:47 PM To:'kbradymn@gmaiLcom' Cc:Steve Lillehaug Subject:RE: 252 Corridor Study Hello Kathy Brady, Thank you for your attendance and your comments. Pertaining to your discussion below, I am aware of this information. Our exhibits have evolved over the past couple of years with new data, we only partially updated the info —the numbers on the exhibits were correct, we missed moving the dots. I discussed this directly with the father you mention below. We will correct this on our future exhibits. We are very aware of all the tragic fatalities on this corridor. That is one of the driving forces behind my passion for this project. Apologies. Kind regards, Steven L. Lillehaug, PE, PTOE Director of Public Works/City Engineer I City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy I Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113 763569-3328 direct I slillehaug@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us From: Kathy Brady [mailto:kbradymn@cimail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 9:58 AM To: Public Works Subject; 252 Corridor Study Good morning. I attend the open house last Tuesday and found it to be very informative. I trust that you engineers, the city, and the consultants will make the best decision for the community. While I understand that public open houses be a great opportunity to provide information to the community, and inevitably will bring criticism from some, I am writing today on a slightly different factor. I introduced myself to another resident attendee simply because I noticed the company jacket he was wearing and that I know someone that works at the company. We exchanged pleasantries, where each of of lived within the City of BC and began discussing the 252 study & graphics provided. Through our discussion, I learned that he was the father of the teenager that was killed at 252 & 73rd Ave in July of 2014. So I can imagine the difficulty and sensitive nature of open house was for the gentleman. I want to share that he was saddened and expressed the displeasure that his son's death was not represented on the maps and statistics presented. While the presented graphics clearly stated the statistics are from 2011 - 2013, I thought you should be reminded of this situation and ask that you consider updating the graphics provided at future open houses/public forums. I do understand that it is not as simple as sounds and realize that the graphics are likely supporting materials within a published study but this grieving family lives within the city our city and their residence would be directly affected (likely lose residence in concepts with 66th interchange) and they will likely continue attending these 252 Corridor info sessions. Just wanted to share a different perspective. Thanks for taking the time read this. Kathy Brady 2014 BCU attendee :o) C Lj i t--" 111 (T'O) F E. ( (vei'vieJ Tlig proposell is imscife 1.It is too close to theC LT/4/252 interchange. Tile ditance houId be 10 tinie what it ts. 2.Vehicles enteilnp, 252 at 66th going south occupy the same space as vehicles exiting 252 to 694. S. Vehicles exiting 252 cre atc, a dangerous situation at 660. 4.Ramps have dangerously sharp angles and pecuflar desigii 5.DramaUc increase of traffic oii West River Road at faster sj:ieeds. 6.Danger at 73 0 increases 1 where the last two deaths occurred. 7.Mississippi River SUbjed(ONI to pollution and debris. Dt!iix' plcms not G!kCO pedestrian/bike ways over 252 at both 66 11 ' and 73 for all plans. A.lns1l flashing lights botli nori:hhouncl and southbound when lights turn. B.Put the interchange at 73"'. OWN , space on both skies of the Intersectio, no businesses or houses destroyed, traditioiial rautips, much cheaper. C.Use Dupont bridge, safe low-Cost option no houses or buSinesses destroyed. D.252 below grade, normal ramps, go over exiting traffic to 694. E.Use part of movie theater parkitig lot. F.70h St. cheaper arid safer than (j6 4 not as good as 73. Whats wrong with existing plan other than it is not safe? The only interesi: consiclere is facilitating businesses on A mistaken understanding of the law is driving 1:heecision-nialdng. Mondays City Council meeting regarding the 252 and 66 interchange. Safety Concerns Only very superficial diagrams have been provided at the publ i c -forum. They do not show lanes, widths, heights of -overpasses, angle of decent or any other important details. This, of course r mes. it much more difficult to appraise the gL2ck!,^e There is only-1/10'h 1/4 mile bet w een the 694/941252 interchange ramps and the proposed 252/ 66tuui nt e r c hne. The proposed plan locks in very high safety risks. !mile (10 times what the proposed plan has going southbound) is the distance required to safely allow cars. to enter and exit the freeway before cars are-again entering and exiting the freeway. Traffic is traveling at 55 or more miles an hour. This is in a high traffic area where traffic volumes are expectedto substantially grow. Buiding in krown. poor design makes no sense Nowhere in the plan does it asse.how much more dangerous these factorsR. make the plan- The plan, when addressing safety, evaluates itself as if there is the-full mile of response time available between intersections, not just 1/101h of it. An honest appraisal of this inreased, safety risk is necessary before this plan should even be.considered. Explanation faulty The claim that ignoring the arLenhlC rule is okay because the interchange is beingplaced in an existing neighborhood is incorrect. It is unsafe wherever you do ft, but even more unsafe in populated neighborhoods with heavy -traffic and a. wide range of vehicles, from gariage trucks, to sports cars entering and leaving the highway. This is an extreme iioIatiori of the one -mile rule, not a minor one. When examined, it is likely the eamination will reveal there is no reason to build in such a dramatic increase in feiy risk, particularly where, as discussed later, there are numerous safe options. Other communities have not all -owed this to occur. Highway 36, Highway 100,169, arid numerous other highways within the last few years have been built wiTh numerous new interchange in residential areas. None of them have dangerous and :p.00.ry:thought out. • .::)WW The entrancesat 66 " when entering252 arent afe. -Cars coming out of the .°nghhorho.od and heading.south from 6& onto 252, unaided by a traffic light, • . 1:n.çounter cay's and trucks on 252 speeding for the ramp to. 694. just one 1.Q Of a mile away. Those cars will hetr.yingto.get tothe far right exactlywhere the en terng iiaffic s enterng fioin the a r. right.It is cul ently almost impossible to :...merge onto 252 south bo und from theivest unless aided by the Ught it does not ppear this reality was observed ort.ken into account in the plan. This design 1•:doesnothingto improve access t all ; it Just takes the light away, forcing cars :1 from the neighborhood to merg Ideci amounts of trafflc trying to get from :252 LP 694. ..Compo.undingthiz problem is the , that cars will be on an entrancO ramp :Facing directly south, they will .need to look back .o.vertheir shoulders to seethe :oflColTiing traffic trying to get to the exit for694 TheyaIso wiil have cars coming . .:u1tm on the ramp making io.re difficult to low. to await a gap in the : rffic extirig 2.2 onto 694 :.in this:pian,. absent havingtraffic .enterin 252 go over the topf the exfting 694 • 1 .'raffic, . is dis. .ussed .Jatr, there.js. no safe p1n possIhJ.. eidt .:Traffic heading northbourici.on 94 .o.nto 252 encountertraffic .xiting pnto 252, first from 594 eastbound then from 694 westbound and then, under -this • . proposal, will have to head into he righthand lane to. get off at the exit for 66 1hs ll occurt n an rIificilly short distance because of the location of the exit :Previouslycarsheading to the wst would go to the left hand turn lanes, cars heading to the east, the right turn lane. Now -all cars will come to the right turn Ieue, havrng to navigate through the entenng cais from 594 to get there Even • th current much saferformat hs ledto a large nuniber.o:f accidents. .4) DIvhrUJtLktt. The exit ramps have dangerousIyshap. .cjrves, likely because they are being :. .....squeze.d into an inappropnate.lqcatipn The layout and angle is very different from what people arc us.d to anclthu. confusing,. Unexpected road designs mct ease the p obabihty of accidents •I ri winter with snow, sleet and ice storms, because of the unusua.Hy acute angles, The risk of accident on. these ramps Is. increased. Nowhere in the plan's .:.Oyuton i$ay:c.0flSJdera 1 0n given, to the increased risk this creates. :.TCurreryUy this stretrh.of West iUv.er.Road is the most active for pedestrians ..jnywhere in the area. It is part of the. Mississippi River Trail, Children on bicycles, :1 .famiifles.a.utt fora walk with baby: strollers, people walking their dogs, bikers, Joggers and hikers, a ppccessing the North Mississii °aikjust to ciICSOuLh of us, and faroUles going tq use the park.oi West.RiyrRoad safely stroll down the River Road is currently a safe street. The plan calls for converting -This local tree.t1 part of th. Mississppi River TraU, into a service road for 252. This brings. .'roraand faster cars into the neighborhood, with the risks that creates. Ft also may be used for bus se,rvice..a.s.252 in the proposed plan does not allow for bus. :stops on 252.As is poInted out eewhere it is likely Wes.t River Road will be. reconnected at 74 to. allow acca,s,tp.:th Jnerchange at Br.o.o.kdaI or .the traffic- .) ncreas.edagr • ..Because Brooldyn.Ceniter is planning on going it alone and not waiting for a coordinated pjan with the 252 Comdor, all decided at the sarn lime in a I :.coordin.ated mariner, we. will have the worst of both. worlds. Either, access to 252 at 73 11 will be Uosed when-the 6 th Utcerchange is finished -or a ii affic signal will remain there until the rest of the Corridoris clone At that poinr, no other chngesto Lhe 232 Corridor will have occunied a) 1.f:traffic.1re.nins.at.73 At i:he meeting it was sugc.steci by the City engineer that the traffic signal will remain for several years, uriUl the rest of the 252 corridor is cornpled. It that is true, t h en trafilc wili be corning up 252 past the interchange at 66 at a high rate of speed only to encounter a traffic light at 73 with all Of the problems that the city Vitus curmrrtly exist at 66 1 ', hut expanentiallV worse. Traffic will still clog at 73' which will mean there isno benefit from the interchange at as far as traffic flows is conccind, as 'traffic will still need to conic to a stop at 73. One of the bend its that regularly spaced ,raIhc lights create is a regulati z ed traffic flow. Here cars coming onto 252 from 694/94 will maintain elevated rates 13eThtlih cv RdduAd than e year. h) If intersect.ton is dosed at 13 i the alternative.. if 73' is closed before any other access points are createa tWs will mean grodclyn Center v.'ill have only one egress point y to 252 and giverwood only one access point at 6NI Consequently there will be increased traffic on the road as discussed elsewhere, (, Contrary to the By engineerS argument at the public hearings, there will be. a loss of access for emrgencv responders. Far more homes are north of then south. Part of this area is in trouldyn Park, responders front rooklyn Park wanting to go to 74' will have to go all the way down to 6 46' go through the interchange and go back up to 74w. These problems do not exist with several of the other plans discussed lat(r. 7) Pauliagei tQ a tervvky 66' is th e closest spot to the Mississippi River on 252. The Interchange wW be on the river with no houses between ft and &W river. This will cause debris, road Silt, exhaust, oU, and all I y ann e l , of other pollutants to he directly deposited into the the Mississippi River. At an\i other location on 252, We road is multiple blocks fl -em the river. Eve I-V house being taken in the proposal is on the Mississippi Rivet. p_ ;p'44*' jI,uIIi I s I I44 3 ,1 •..r • i.,. -. S ,, I,tI iç JOS I, of sufcty problems with P rop oSal J1O ITB2 fwm 64/J4/252 1flt1flU Ramp . Vthicles UupyJfli 5ani W1I^ Enterifl stutnbound Lar2 3 D .4 h U 'Eiing at 6611 4. Daief(flY sha1p gl or ramps . Ltuu1at r readTra!Ift cm West PSvr Road 6.InteichflC ir reS Dane 73 7.Puute. v5iSPl) tv , Aij pc %Th •,i S I• -.• 't1L Li.IL y - I.-. •-.a , •• ' :.:: f •I / TV IN I 4'14^'Ill I 4/ :r - Na NA • . . •r: - - 4__.•, .,I I \ .• • • I: - I • •j•••'VIIt1kL z•: :L1 1.I 8) PedoAtrian Crossing 252 at 66 and 73 10 is currently dangerous. Walkways should he put at 65111 and 7rt. regard less of where the interchange goes. One is not dependent on the other. With the increased traffic flow on the River Road, pedestrian overpasses may be required there.-?15 well, Cdtkl other.r nt ppropriaely redo £hdJ cometecess. There was not a serious consideration of any location other than 66th for the interchange. There also was no compelling reason to do an interchange at all, independent of "a coordinated 25Z corridor plan. Proceeding with any plan that is not part of a plan for all of the 252 corridor Is unwise and restricts the ability to have the best plan for the whole corridor'. Community input was not seriousiy sought. Rather than input being appreciated, it was viewed with irritation and defensiveness. At each of the community meetings the-city engineer or others presented their point of view and did not meaningfully consider the input from the most affected people, the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Putting an interchange at 6 and 252 was the only solution that was seriously considered. That is unfortunate as it has numerous and substantial problems which will be locked in for years to come. The proposed plan does not honestly or thoughtfully examine the safety risks, the impact on the neighborhood, safer and less intrusive alternatives that are available, nor the impact on the Mississippi River. The main motivator that has been mentioned in support of this plan is a desire to maintain access to 252 for businesses on th west side of interchange. That has been the only justification fo.r.picking this location. However, if accurate information has been provided, this plan would remove the Holiday gas station, the dental office and two vacant commercial properties. 8 The rationale thus is reduced to making sure remaining businesses, the failing theater and the strip mall have direct access to 252 This 15a relatiw4y flimsy jw,;tification for a major, multhTiUion dollar interchange. It also ignores the value of a vibrarit community and the homes that are within it particularly in such a rare location as the Rivervood neighborhood, which sits perched on the banks of the Mississippi River less than .() minutes from dointown. The city engineer has repeatedly indicated that if the interchange goes somewhere else, millions of dollars will have to be paid to the few remaining businesses This is not accurate. Typically 1 orily property owners who have part or all of their property taken are entitled to compensation. It makes no difference whether It is a personal home, farm or business. The compensation is determined by the reduction in value of the property, individualized damages do not fit into the general equation. Properties that do riot abut highways to begin with seldom are eligible for compensation for loss of access to that highway, particularly if reasonable. albeit more difficult access remains. Additionally, if access from one side Of a clivIdcci highway remains, absent the most extraordinary of circumstances, no compensation is owed just because the other side o' the highway is no longer accessible, cther mctjvo, It has been suggested the City is anticipating the closing of the movie theater and wants to develop that area into a big box retailer or car lot. The city's commercial development plans appear to suggest the city is also thinking of placing comnïercial enterprises on both the West and the east side of 252. It is questionable, considering the difficulty that many business enterprises have had, ranging from grokclaIe to the movie theater, that this would be that desirable lOCtjrDfl for such enterprises, and debatable whetherusing a road project as a Trojan horse to do cornmorci& development is appropriate. If either or both of these is true the proposed plan, with is very dangerous intersection, would be harm those projects. As is discussed below simple, cheaper, methods are apparent serve that goal. Il1r1&ft stiffers many fcis This plan has no benefits to hcirnoowners, community members and those usint public tralispOrtwiJoli. At all the public meetings the vast majority of krookln Center citizens, on hoi:h sides of 2S2 strongly opposed this project. Criteria that were not carefully considered were, the safety of the design its location, the eiect on the RiVerVLOOd neighborhood, the affect on the neighborhoods on the west: side of 251 the effect on the Mississippi River i\iational Waterway, as well as the resultant very costly environmental impact studies that will inevitably follow. Also not considered was cootdination with the rest of the 252 corridor, the cost -benefit of the project in terms of people served per dollar spent, the vjisdoni of proceeding with such a major project before all of 252 has been coordinated. The plan ultimately is to turn to 252 into a limited access highw:ay, This nicans the closest interchange to the north would be at @rciokdale, but it might also be north of that, because there is no 252 corridor plan in place we don't knows This plait will leave only one access po!nt into lThierwood, and one access point to 252 and all of Brooklyn Center, it will also close 70t1 , 7rd, lumbotdt, 81! If the interchanges is at 66' this will inevitably require reopening the River Road MP so there can be two access points into the Riverwood c orr ni u n it .y and to allow access to that interchange to the north A half interchane 7A 73 and full at Prookdale obviously would never happen, beyond it being opposed by Brooklyn Park, it makes no traffic or financial sense. The plan calls for converting West Rivet Road from a local road into a service road carrying substanl:ial traffic. Currently it is part of the Mississippi River trail with robust pedestrian traffic, kids on bikes and families strolling. It has for inure foot traffic than any other street iii the entire area This plan creates a new danger for children, grandchildren and the elderly. We are far more often lb crossing West River Road on foot than crossing 252. This dramatic increase in the number of automobiles, and the speed they will be travelling, is a serious safety concern The reason 252 was built to begin with was, in part, to create safer neighborhoods by keeping traffic out of them AThLEP1LJLS- S'egordless of what u/tern ative is used, pdestdor/ bicycle bridges over 252 should and can be done f 73 A)ilashers Install large flashing lights, both northbound and southbound before you get to the intersections at both 66 and 73 16 warning of upcoming red lights that goes cii shortly before the Iiht turns. Until there is a compote and publicly vetted 252 corridor plan ) take no other steps B)73 interchange This option is dramatically better on every criteria and 66. 7 is about a mile frorn the 694/94/ 252 interchange, The interchange could go just north of the 73 intersection where there is open spare on both sides of the highway. No homes or businesses would need to be taken All the land necessary is already in government hands. A traditional bridge could go over the top with 25 going below grade which would also reduce noise Normal exit and entrance ramps could he used. 73" is four blocks from the riven. The luration easily accommodates a safe interchangeThis could indude exit ramps at 66th By contrast) 6' would be on the riverbank, zero blocks from the river, destroying homes and businesses, necessitating a very convoluted ramp design, is just a loll , of a mile from the 694 entrance ramp. As a consequence, it is designed with multiple safety problems. 7331' would be dramatically less expensive than the convoluted folded diamond sharp angled design at 66 There is absolutely no legitimate basis not to adopt this intersection. •1 1116, 1 .:, (II.:. :..•i ,r ti •.,U 1 V,- IN Note: Open Spce E:astd West of Intersection I I C)Dupont option Utilize the seldom used Dupont Avenue bridge, which is just a few blocks past the Regal Theater, to handle southbound traffic. There is vacant space where the bridge conies over on the south side. Place a ramp onto 4/694 from there. This has the benefit that the bridge is already there and vacant land is available for the entrance ramp. Eating from northbound 94 or westbound 69' could he at Dupont or Humboldt This would require modification, but would he dramatically cheaper than the- folded diamond sharp angled design for 66 This may be easiest to accomplish USiriff, the land that is already in government hands by Humboldt The use of the Dupont Avenue bridge could also be part of one of the other plans. It would not require purchasing any homes, businesses or disrupting any neighborhoods. It would also give the entire neighborhood south of 694 superior access to 694 and 94. Currently residents of that area need to go as many as ii blocks south to access 94. thtES at Even If a plan were to go at 66, the proposed plan is not the proper one. It disr egards safety, harm to the neighborhood, the Mississippi River National waterway and important other values. Far superior plans exist. The intersection should not go at 66 11 ", but, if it does, the proposed plan is probably the most expensive plan with its folded diamond sharp angled design, most dangerous and has taken no steps to ameliorate, the harm to the entire neighborhood, the Mississippi River waterway or any other important criteria. D)Have 252 could go below grade, allowing 66th th go over the top at grade. A very dangerous aspect of the current plan is traffic exiting 66 going southbound is oni a collision course with cars on 2 132 trying to exit onto the ramp fr westbound 694. The proposed plan tries to have two cars occupy the same space at same time, the only way that happens is with a crash. 'AllI):! 11/ Note: Open Spice on South Side of Bridge p If 252 is below grade, several safety problems can be reduced. Traffic coming off of G6Th going south could be on a descending ramp that goes over the traffic. exiting 252 to w 694 thereby reducing a dingerous aspect of the currently proposed plan. 252 being below grade, would cut down on noise, debris, atid pollution thereby reducing some of the da , rnagQ to the neighborhood and the Mississippi River, The acute angled folded diamond ramp design would be discarded with more traditional exits and entrances removing another dangerous component of the proposed plan. Further thought would have to go into how the danger from northbound traffic working its way over to the 66 Street exft could be reduced. E) loaIngi If the goal is to make the movie theater's lot more marketable, the whole neighborhood does not have to be harmed to achieve that. The southeastern side of the movie theater parking lot abuts the ramp to €I94 which can easily be modified to give access to 94 as well. Along the east side of the theater lot, a simple 30 foot access road could connect to the ramp. This could also access 94 by the simple step of removing the cement barrier which is the only thing that stops directs access to 94. This approach could also be used to address the problem discussed above where cars entering 252 southbound are on a collision course with cars exiting 252 to 694. They could also be directed to access 94 and 694 going southbound on a street ci tamp built through the movie th ea t e r L-ither way, this would make that property more in with its own direct access to the highway. This is not a. complete sokitlori that solves many of the issues ,There are numerous other configurations that could utilize a portion oil movie theater parking lot and/or the empty lot beside it to alleviate some of the problems discussed here. It does not appear any of these options have been considered. F) 70 St 70 " is more centrally located for the neighborhood and further frorn694/941252 interchange; On the west side of 252 the city owns a significant amount of land which would cut down on the impact of placing an interchange and it would not need to be a sharp angled double diamond plan. 70 however, although less '5 IJ Ithk rkj tLii Upper Picture Note: Easy Access to 694 Entrance Ramp Lower Picture, Note; Easy Access to 94 ' 11 'I k :3 • . j S 1 FIliii U) expensive and more sensible and 66th might also require tai<ing homes which does not, Other possibiliEie There are a number of other viable plans that are superiorto the current - proposal. The main point is that there needs to be significant additional investigation because the current plan is the worst of all possible plans. It creates a very dangerous intersection which, if built, will likely take lives for decades to come, it also threatens several of the city's rilost vibrant neighborhoods, and the lvlississippl River national waterway without any justification. The Mississippi River, Riverwood, -the neighborhoods on the west side of 252 are all more valuable than future commercial enterprise on the movie t h u;i e r site. Li Note: Open Spce on West Side of 22 I1- mrpqui 1) -9 • 0•0 01 OQJ'CD • • • • c)nZth•lip U (flfl) •.. ..• ••(0 0 01 Cm W CO i'<< I 0 LNJ Ln fE •<•n w • . •(0)(0.•.••• .Q0c1/ t (t> ID •th (0 1H • . ...Ln . n.••...vi (0 Q(:/ • CôicenAbout the City's Plans for - Hih à' 252 V CONVERTiNG CONTROLJ.EI) rNTRSEnoN TO UNCONTROLLED IN'i ERCHANGI LESS J lIEN A 114 MILE of,ANOTHLR INTERCHANGE, The City of Brooklyn Center has presented several possible plans for changes to Highway 252 at 66 k". They wish to coiislruct towering above grade flyovers and an1p at the inteiseetioii To lo this they will have to remove miJtipie homes. All of these plans share the same flaw. They all place an interchangat 66"'. This is less than a quarter-mile from the 694 entrance and exit ramps. The plan would create and lock in a dangerous situation. If the plan were to go forward They would also close the access at 70111, and quite possibly later dose the 731(1 intersection. These actions would ii ease the local road traffic substantially for W River Rd as it would be onveTinto a service road for 252, and Humboldt, as access to and from 252 at 70 " closed. Only the city's plan This is the City's plan. It is not that of the State highway department or any other entity. At the meeting regarding the City's plans it indicated several very concernful priorities for its plan. It prioritizes not disturbing businesses on the west side of 252,and serving commuters -coming from 610 or other non- Brooklyn Center communities, over the local community. It gave no priority to public transportation, sound wails, nondestruction of housing, the Mississippi River corridor, or the realities that exist in Rivei'woocL The City wants to get a plan in place quickly so it can influence the State to allow an interchange to be at 66 11 1 less than a mile from the-694, 94, 252 existing interchange. Their plan is not coordinated with any other plans for 252. The presenters made clear they wish to protect the tax base from a few businesses over maintaining a vibrant community of homes. Cre ating (tudLociwig In the Danger. To have uncontrolled interchanges so close together is typically prohibited because it is so dangerous. It is 1101 an advisable solution. If it is built it will likely be therefor decades to come. This in is already dangerous enough even with traffic con trol.lights to facilitate traffic from th en eighborh ood leaving and entering 252; The exit ramp coming on to north 252 from 694 W.Is about 1/5th (2) of a mile from the existing. bntrolled intersection. The exit off Of 252 goig south on to E&W 694 and Highway 100 is less than that, little more than a 1/1 0th of a mile. Cars will be coming off of 94 &694 at 65 mph onto North 252 and then will immediately crisscross as some try to get to the exit ramps whether going east or west. A new set of cars will be entering the highway at the new interchange approximate 10 seconds after Northbound cars leave 694/94. The existing situation when coming north on 252 and exiting at 66' into our community is already challenging. Cars entering 252 from the two 694/94 ramps inerging with the 94 northbound traffic makes getting over to the right-hand lane to enter our community difficult. It will get much worse. Both the car seeking to go West and the cars seeking go east, will be moving to the right side if the new flyover ramp is built. There are solid scientific reasons for not putting uncontrolled interchanges so close together. It wasn't that long ago that the Riverwood community stood fast against having the Holiday gas station on the east side 252. We prevailed on that occasion. This is far more important. Why devastate Riverwood. The city's preferred plans calls for ramps climbing high over our rooftops to create the new interchange. One looks like octopus tentacles reaching deep into the neighborhood. Beyond the noise, unsightliness, pollution, invasion of privacy, destruction of numerous homes, devaluing of dozens of others, and danger to the Mississippi River corridor, there is no good reason for it. Very few cars actually leave or enter 252 to come into Riverwood at 66th• There are a far larger number of cars that enter or leave 252 from or going to the West. Actually, many cars entering Riverwood at this intersection, particularly during evening rush hour, are actually going West and are just entering the neighborhood to get on 66"'and head West. The little traffic that we generate does not justify such an intrusion into the neighborhood; • No bus plan. -. - Under the city's current pi:oposal there are no bus stops yen though the bus stop at66th is heavily utilized. Loss of bussrvice the community would be quite difficult some. . : •- ............... - No sound wcills. The proposals do not include any plans for sound walls despite the fact that these changes Will un' doubtedlyatfract far more traffic to' this section of 252. When the city sold the land to build the town home south of 661 the city did not put in any sound walls The city does not intend to spend the money to put in any sound walls on this new project, on 252, either. Making matters worse Currently the elevated portion of 694 as it crosses the river creates far more noise in much of neighborhood, even though it is much further away than 252. The elevated ramps that the city is proposing, similarly will project noise far deeper into the neighborhood at a much greater decibel level. The West side of 252 is harmed. 70TH entrance closet!. The plan will not merely adversely affect the east side of 252, it will also adversely affect the west side of 252 . On the west side of 252 there will also be Cloverleaf's climbing over the rooftops of the nearby homes, and apartments, with all the same problems mentioned elsewhere. The City indicates it will close 70th immediately. Cars that previously using 70t1 will be forced to use side streets or Humbolt increasing traffic through neighborhoods Affecting both sides of 252 most all of the North portion of Brooklyn Centel- 73j1 entrance and exit will likely be closed. If the traffic light is removed at 66thi then.73 will become an even more dangerous intersection as cars traveling at a high rate of speed will not be anticipating a traffic light at this location. It has already taken the lives of two of our neighborhood residents this year. If an interchange goes in at 66thi then there will be no basis to keep the intersection at 73d1 open. It is a city's stated goal to convert 252 into a limited access highway, thus the closing of 73' would likely follow a few years later. It is unlikely that an interchange wouldbeplaced at 73'. The much busier BrooklynBoulevard, or would be the next .logical choice.. They are also. far further from :the River. One of the city's arguments has been that we should have two points of egress and ingress, but if 73'' is losedwe still would not. This might lead to the opening of River Road at 74th so tf'affic ôóuldg6badk-and-forth. This would further degrade the quality of the neighborhood by increasing traffic flow significantly.. The Mississippi River corridor. The thinnet poiiEitbtweèn 252 thdMississippi River is the very point where the city wants to do these huge overpasses. The homes it intends to consume to build the overpasses are all directly on the river. The city takes no note of this in its poorly conceived plan. We have seen numerous efforts by the federal, state, and local government to enhance the Mississippi River corridor, and maintain it as a natural treasure. Dunham! Peace Island sits in the middle of the river at this point. Building such complicated overpasses on the side of the river would immediately not only impact our entire neighborhood, but also the Mississippi River corridor itself. The DNR and Federal government do not even allow River front property owners to place things on or near the riverbank that detract from the wild natural look of the river. These requirements are becoming more stringent every few years. The City, however ,is proposing to cavalierly create an eyesore almost on the riverbanks. It has little justification for selecting the spot as location for its interchange, other than its misplaced priority of assisting the very few businesses, currently in the stripmall by Super America and perhaps wishes someday to attract more. It seems to forget if you-destroy your viable neighborhoods, you destroy the viability of small businesses. The river road which the city intends to convert into a service road with heavier traffic is part of the Mississippi River trail system, virtually year-round except in the bitterest portions of winter, the low traffic and unbroken pedestrian walkway, allows by cyclist, joggers, strollers, family, pets, and all manner of others to utilize this stretch of the river road as a delightful area for outdoor activities. Sloppy thinking and planning. Previously more sensible solutions have been proposed. They included leaving things as they are, having a simple bridge go over to 252, having,252 go below grade and-66 1 " go over it at grade level, having 66th go under 252- (as the land slopes to the river,-.Willow is about. 10 feet below 252 at 66th), have no crossover at 252 and 66th from the East you could enter and exit going northbound, from the West you can enter and exit going southbound), but these are just a fe' thoughts. The current plan does not utilize any of the huge parking lot at the movie theater most of which is seldom used. Nor does it utilize other open spades. It does not consider other ways to link 66th 694/94 (it could connect through the south end of the regal parking lot in a number of ways. Except for vague conclusions , no serious anal'sis has been made of the cost-benefit of the cun'entians. No creative consideration of alternative plans has occurred. The difference between road improvements where a local government champions the welfare of its neighborhoods and those where it is not, are striking. These plans are an example of proposals that completely ignored the features, characteristics, and needs of our neighborhoods. We must insist that the city apply creative thinking, that maintains the characteristics of our community and come up with a plan that enhances not diminishes Riverwood and Brooklyn Center's neighborhoods. AWSB________ Infrastructure u Engineering n Planning w Construction !. 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 To: Steve Lillehaug, PE, City of Brooklyn Center From: Tony Heppelmann, PE, WSB & Associates Rose Ryan, AICP, WSB & Associates Date: April 6, 2015 Re: TH 252 Corridor Study Open House Meeting #2 Summary WSB Project No. 02602-000 The purpose of this meeting summary is to document attendance at the second Public Open House Meeting for the TH 252 Corridor Study and the comments collected to date on the study. The meeting was held at Brooklyn Center City Hall on Tuesday, February 10 from 5:30-7:00 p.m. Notices and project newsletters were sent to property owners in Brooklyn Center near the corridor. Attendance Sign in sheets from the meeting indicate that approximately 34 people attended the meeting. It should be noted that there were more attendees at the meeting than what is reflected on the sign-in sheets. Based on discussions with staff attending the meeting, it is estimated that there were closer to 50 people in attendance. Sign-in sheets and a map showing addresses of attendees are attached at the end of the memo. Additionally, several elected officials attended the meeting, including Mayor Tim Willson, Council Member Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Council Member Lin Myszkowski, Council Member Dan Ryan, and State Senator Chris Eaton. Written Comments from the Meeting One written comment card was completed by a meeting attendee. This comment asked that 66th Avenue N be carried over TH 252 because it would result in less traffic noise than elevating TH 252 over 66th Avenue N. Verbal Comments from the Meeting Property owners and residents reviewed the materials presented at the meeting relating to existing conditions on the corridor and issues identified by the city and TAC members. Comments heard at the meeting fell into the following themes. Comments made were responded to at the meeting by city and consulting staff in attendance. o Property Impacts: • Residents wanted more details on which properties and homes would be impacted by proposed alternatives at 66th Avenue N. Staff explained that this information is not available at this stage of the study. • Several residents were concerned that commercial property on the west side of TH 252 at 66th Avenue N was being preserved at the expense of residential properties on the east side. Some meeting attendees said that the commercial property west of TH 252 should not be a priority. • Impacts to neighborhood east of TH 252: • A resident raised a concern that the proposed frontage road (as part of Alternatives 3 and 4— Folded Diamond and Buttonhook interchanges) would encourage speeding through the neighborhood. • One resident asked if a sound wall will be included in future projects at 66th Avenue N. Staff said noise mitigation will be addressed as part of theMnDOlfreeway study. • Alternatives and interchange design: o One resident asked if Alternative 1 (Green "1" with "J" Turn) could be constructed more quickly as a transition to a future freeway on TH 252, or if it would need to be removed if TH 252 is converted to a freeway. Staff responded that Alternative 1 is not consistent with freeway design and would need to be removed to convert TH 252 to a freeway. This alternative could not be constructed much more quickly than the others. • Several residents suggested that 73rd Avenue N is a better location for an interchange because there would be fewer impacts to residential properties than at 66th Avenue N. Staff raised a concern about emergency vehicle access to the east side of TH 252. Residents had mixed opinions about whether it would be adequate to only have emergency access to this neighborhood via 73rd Avenue N. Staff noted that it is a best practice to have two emergency access points to a neighborhood. • One resident asked that the city consider split access: access to the west would be provided at 66th Avenue N and access to the east would be provided at 73rd Avenue N. An additional resident said that very few people access the east side of TH 252 from 66th Avenue N. He observed that most drivers making northbound right turns at this intersection are people making U-turns and crossing the highway as an alternative to making a left turn off of TH 252. • Another resident suggested moving ramp loops to the west side of 66th Avenue N to avoid residential property impacts on the east side of TH 252. Page 2 • One resident asked if the city/MnDOT are trying to fix 66th Avenue Nonce, rather than coming back in 10-20 years to address additional problems. Staff responded that the city and MnDOT prefer alternatives that can stay in place if TH 252 is converted into a freeway. • A resident asked the city to consider grade separating 66th Avenue N without providing access to TH 252 (overpass instead of an interchange). • Alternatives evaluation: o One resident raised a concern that the alternatives that were scored the highest (Alternatives 3 and 4: Folded Diamond and Folded Diamond with Buttonhook) benefit through traffic and not residents in Brooklyn Center. o Several residents thought that preserving residential property on the east side of 66th Avenue N should be a higher priority than preserving and supporting commercial activity on the west side. • Safety at 73rd Avenue N: o One resident noted that there have been two recent traffic fatalities at 73rd Avenue N. If an interchange is constructed at 66th Avenue and the signal remains at 73rd Avenue N, the increase in traffic speeds south of 73rd Avenue will contribute to future safety problems at this intersection. • Another resident asked that improvements to 66th and 73rd Avenues N be completed at the same time so that there are not safety problems at 73rd Avenue N. • One resident suggested prohibiting left turns at 73rd Avenue N to address safety issues. • Transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access: o One resident asked about how buses would be accommodated if TH 252 was converted into a freeway. Staff noted that they will continue to coordinate with Metro Transit to determine bus stop and park and ride locations. Center-running buses could be considered. o Several residents asked about proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities across and along TH 252. Staff responded that all bridge and grade-separated alternatives include sidewalk and/or trail. At-grade alternatives include a separate bicycle and pedestrian bridge to provide access across TH 252. Bike lanes are not proposed along TH 252. o Next steps, agency coordination, and funding: o One resident asked about the Metropolitan Council's role in the project. Staff responded that the Metropolitan Council has spacing guidelines that must be applied if TH 252 is converted into a freeway. The Metropolitan Council can also provide funding for the project. They have been involved in project coordination meetings. o One resident asked about coordination with Brooklyn Park. Staff responded that Brooklyn Park is supportive of the long-term freeway vision forTH 252 and has been involved in project coordination meetings. o A resident asked when improvements to the 66th Avenue N intersection might be constructed. Staff responded that funding has not been secured. The soonest project construction could start would be in 2019. Page 3 a One resident asked if property owners would be directly assessed for the project. Staff responded that property owners would not be directly assessed. Comments on TH 252 Issues Map At the first open house, a map of the corridor was provided and attendees were asked to write on the map or talk to staff about issues at specific locations in the corridor. Comments were added to the TH 252 Issues Map and presented at the meeting. One additional comment was added to the map during the second open house. The comment noted that drivers do not always accelerate when making a southbound right turn onto TH 252 from 85th Avenue N. It was suggested that signs be installed to warn drivers that there is not a merge or acceleration lane at this location. Additional Written Comments Following the open house meeting, two written comments were received from residents along the corridor. One resident disagreed with others who suggested closing access to and across TH 252 from the east side of 66th Avenue N. He requested that the city consider grade separating 66th Avenue N without providing access to TH 252 in order to preserve connectivity for emergency vehicles. Another resident expressed concerns about weaving and safety issues if an interchange is constructed at 66th Avenue N. He suggested grade separating 66th Avenue N without providing access to TH 252. The full text of these comments is attached. Attachments Sign in sheet Written comments received Page 4 L cityof RROOKLYN CENTER Name: TH 252 Corridor Study Open House Meeting Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Telephone Number: '° 5 3Email: Please sham your comments below: A OVer$ (c bc (at /OI Please place -comments in the comment box; email them to Steve Lillehaug at publicworksci.brooklyn-centermfl, or mail them to Steve Lillehaug, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Bráoklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Please place comments in the comment box; e-mail them to Steve Lillehaug at publicwarksci.brooklvn-centerninus or mail them to Steve Lillehug, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Please share yotr comments below: va t) jtM #t:ctY&I Adu7/ Please place comments in the comment box; e-mail them to Steve LiUehaug at publicwori<s(cLbrookIyn-centermn.us, or mail them to Steve Lillehaug, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Th 262 Corridor Studyao! of BROOKLYN Open Houee Meeting CENTER Thursday, April 2, 2015 ame; Peoee eham your comments below Aft, Op-, Sj 6&-K,S1"d 1rQ1-N k Awlaz' /I -; yd' I4M'1 A/ /i / t [6 j / 'V , k,- P t d- C oJ ad / L /1 L. 1 i b -URwYJ dJ itv * I6 r4Ai i1i1 1 p g MS ;J / u ' s 0 c$ith, FVWkJ" 6' %AV f/L2\T0 LJ 7'7iV , Please place comments in the comment box; e-mail them to Steve Lillehaug at Dublicworkscci.brooklyn-center.rnrLUs or mail them to Steve Lillehau, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Perkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 65430 Appendix G Cityll Council Resolution Letter L T1Pt cw 'y TJ'd) LL'J ii)ii )cJ AVS \ GREAT PLACE TO START, A GliM PLACE TO STAY Sep1euhci' 23, 201 :i i'Iiniiesota )eI>artIncnt Drnli1sI)UrtatiQi1 /\ttn; Nk SeoU vleBride 1500 West (30 RI) I32 OSC\IIIC MN 55113 iiVW.t;ityoihtookIyi,co:i ter.O(g( Metropolitan Cotuici AIM: Ms. Connie KiI1 390 AlAm Street North St. Pau 1, MN 55]D1 RN: 111 252 Fi eway Conversion lojeel 'Jo whom this may coiicern On behiIi of the City or l3rooldyn I jiovide the aw-ed flrooklyn Center City Council Resolution itquestrigand suppwtiiigihe Minnesota I)u1inrti ntofivaiisp taIi'i1 (Miil)Oi) and the Mcoopohtau Council to u1ithite the st a t e 's 1j asporiatiun Plan to include i Ti 1 252 ii'cewayeonvcrsiun project and to immediately pIOCI with the necessary focway co veouofl study 7 t)ktflh1iUL and prouimming ol fundiiu, tr this pi'cjccL The City or Uroklvii Center is curreiiily eimpIethi a 9ìigh love I"]' 1252 CoiTidor Stud that is expected to -dctrmine feasible mt rchanoe locations within flrooklyti Center and Fivroklyn Park. Coneun'ently1 MnD(IF has also procecdcd with a Freewu c.onvcoic'n study, which stailed back in tanuary 2015. It is imperative that we continue these part aership to complete MnI)OF's free-way conversion study with the-goal oldevelopingo TI-I252 Stall Appioed Layout, ultimately leadim to the inclusinu l'a TI I 252 freeway convcrsiuii pmiect in the Stafs 'i'ra usporuil ion Ph an. 1 request n omy W em po and mWpon o mol d by 10L1\ a ( ntu Cit)` ( oun. ml Pk i oat v t niL 'witil any .1uetions at 7635693328 or s1ihlchlwg(ei.IlOklyn-CCI1tetflULL 1 Sincerely,i) ff Stc\re I ,jlkli;iug. P.1,-l.'IT(i)l3 City Nn2inecrh)ireclar ol Puhile \Vmks LimeIosume cc: John Griffith, M uDOT April Crockett, MnI)OT Ranurokutty Kniinankult>c Mnl)(fl Jonathan Erlich,Meiropa1itnm Council mutes (iih. I-Ienncpin County Jeilery I lolsicimi. (-tv oh' 1tioukh'um Park City Hull Community Cuntor Police. & Fire prtnionttI Shnte Crs P:kwa 631i1 SIminçi Cre Padiay G15 Humhlift A'iiima U'TTh atily Contar, Mt 543132tJ9 fl:cojii Cent6j t.tN 54I21I9 Ococlyn CwWQM 5543-m4B53 • Fax: 73293194 76•555410I Fax: 756'15t • Fax: 73.5610717 Member April Graves introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption RESOLUTiON NO 1.46 RESOLUTION REQUESTING AND SUPPORTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO UPDATE THE STATE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO INCLUDE A TRUNK HIGHWAY (TB) 252 FREEWAY CONVERSION PROJECT AND TO IMMEDIATELY PROCEED WITH THE NECESSARY FREEWAY CONVERSION STUDY, PLANNING, AND FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT WHEREAS, TB 252 is one of the limited number of Principal , Arterial roadways linking communitieS in the northwest area of the Twin Cities; and WHEREAS, TN 252 is a regional highway that exists 'from 1-94 to TB 610 through the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, and hag significant safety, congestion, and neighborhood connectivity' issues; and WHEREAS, TH 252 exists as an expressway facility nnder the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation with traffic that has exceeded the corridor capacity but is currently not included itt state's Transportation Plan to address the identified long- standing corridor transportation issues or forecast traffic; and WHEREAS, TB 252 has some of the highest crash rates in the Twin Cities with 'foiir fatalities on this 4 niile section of roadway between 2003-2013; and WHEREAS, with th e significant increase in the future forecast traffic and future connection of TFI 610 to 1-94 in Maple Grove, it is imperative that TB 252 be properly improved to accommodate this expected regional traffic while sustaining and improving local connectivity and safety; and WHEREAS, a technical advisory group consisting of transportation professionals from the Minnesota D ep art ment of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan Transit, the City of Brooklyn Park, and the City of Brooklyn Center have determined that this corridor must he converted from an expressway to freeway to meet the future transportation needs of the corridor and region; and WHEREAS, a TB 252 Freeway Conversion Project would be of mutual benefit to the State, the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, and the a pproximately 70,000 vehicles traveling daily through this corridor; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is mutually committed to collaboratively developing the TB 252 Project from the southerly termini at 1-94 through Brooklyn Center, into Brooklyn Park to the northerly termini at TI-I 610. RESOLUTIONNO.2015-446 NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City of Brooklyn Center hereby requests the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council to amend the State's Transportation Plan for the immediate inclusion of the Ti-I 252 Freeway Conversion Project and to immediately proceed. with the necessary conversion study, planning, and programming of funding for this project. ptpmher 14, 2015 17^ C-^7- -^ A . 11, Date Mayor ATTEST: 49&+^4YL City Clerk The motion for the adop'tion of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dan Ryan and upon vote being taken thereon, the following votedin favor thereof: Tim Willson, April Craves; Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowsk±, and Dan Ryan; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Appendix D.- Riverwood Neolqhborhood Petition A PETITION FROM THE PEOPLE OF RI VER WOOD NEIGHBOHORHOOD TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING IT'S STUDY OF, AND PROPOSALS FOR, MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY 252 The City of Brooklyn Center (the "City") has undertaken a study of Minnesota Trunk Highway 252 ("Highway 252") and, through its Public Works Department, has devised various proposals to address concerns regarding congestion, safety, and access to surrounding neighborhoods. The City has held three (3) public open houses (May 24, 2014; February 10, 2015; and, April 2, 2015) to engage the public, and present proposals that are the result of its study to improve Highway 252. However, the people of Riverwood Neighborhood feel the City's proposals address the problems of Highway 252 in ways that negatively affect their vibrant neighborhood. The people of Riverwood feel the City's current proposals do not satisfy the goals and objectives of the Higbway 252 Corridor Study; believe them to be. unsafe to residents, visitors, and those traveling through the Highway 252 corridor area, and could increase various of pollution in and around their neighborhood, including its roads, trails, its park, and the Mississippi River. The people of Riverwood feel the City has performed insufficiently in engaging the neighborhood, and listening and responding to the concerns of taxpaying, voting, residents when it comes to such changes to Highway 252 that if realized would directly and negatively impact their quality of life. Therefore, we the undersigned people of Riverwood Neigbborhood request that the City of Brooklyn Center take actions necessary to delay, any vote, or action, that would preclude further input from the public regarding any and all matters involving Highway 252. Further, the undersigned, request that the City of Brooklyn Center, through the City Council, and various departments and employees, commit to meeting with residents to engage in a form of discussion proper to the relationship that was envisioned to exist between the City and the people of Riverwood. 1, A RESIDENT OF THE NEIOHBORUOOD OF RIVERWOOI), F1°ERJBY AFFIX MY NAME AND ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE (OPTIONAL) DATE. . ^zb \At 1 A. (1 -. - / (ir Y Y/4//ç D LJ 1I l/LiX ) 1 /7 ;/ /n u •\\K Ok k •m '6-..-- \)fi M b 71/ LJ /vle /;(qIII (\,rP 'T '2 '7L) 5f 7.c'7 '' 1(/' (; < I A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF RIVERWOOD, HEREBY AFFIX MY NAME AND ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE(OPTIONAL) DATE __$Y ("v '7H1Jiio Y/c T±LL / 4 7//4)/8 Kis Lciv,2-ob,..o4(\J/L./2.//s c-7&.: JL '\_L 6 ci 35 c1ithi T VA -U±^ fl)7o23 çituLw.ci-1 92c2z7 (•••)')Qzc2Z.7 ft - -_71 19 - V4 0 /)1 /L 12 .$ ( 1 à7 - /. I, A RESID1N'F OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF RIVERWOC)D, UFJUiRY AFFIX MY NAMFi AND AI)DRISS iN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION. NAM E' ADDRESS TELEPHONE (OPTIONAL) PATE, 7f ffz/iili / 9 f ((1 7)u(1 ): i , )( 5 \'( '••/i 1) I L-' J I - -.. •1 ¶ )J..d 7/ J(7//; \ I (- t I i s Li /) 9 ) c /7 / if // (; 7! f //) - I (I ' - Iv ) (r___•i \t - __f- I I\ I ( fr ' L) It ( ( 2(;) , A RFSIDEN1 OF TIlE NE1GIIB()RUOO[) OF RIVN.RWOOJ), HEREBY AFFIX MY NAML ANI) ;\Dl)RNSS IN SUIPORT OF TIlLS PITFI'1ON. NitYIE ADDRESS 'I'E1dP1IONI (OPTIONAL)DATE i"• i.tr. N / 1J11 i i YikI I I I :••/r / '/ L\tv I:)Lç / IN I II_____L!_1 ;__ (__Li1iL(L1 . - •- - t I, ( - I te i 1 (o Ll RI Jrk //')() (1's ( 15 A RESIDENT OF 11 IF NEIGI IBOREIOOD OF RVERWOOD, HEREBY AFFIX MY NAME AND ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF TI ItS PR1TI1ON. NAME 1 ADDRESS 1 1 LIrI1uN1 (OPTIONAL) DAFE I - f L( JJf IAJ ( f 2 ' ___ tt j f / / L: /.,. / I 1 [. \);5 41± th (1 ; JI .-;) A' jf fr '- iiI ( I I I / / / - /1 7 -11/2W j / / L A iUS1DENT OF Till' N1i(iI 1130R1 K)O1) 01" kIVikW()OD flHREI3Y AI+IX MY NAME ANI) ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF TE-IIS PETITION. ADDRESS TELEP1IIONJ (OP1'.IONM) 1)ATF / $7) / )j.<L) &,7 ? 1)/ I L jj"L N !1 X3 - f / q (-'") I, A RFSIDENT OF THE NE[OFIBORHOOD OF REVERWOOD, HEREBY AFFIX MY NAME AND ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION, NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE (OPTIONAL) DATE Lfl _ -b'WM OjO-A/-rzI 77.....-... .'- 4....,,, ...........4.t.4'-14 777-g . A RFSIDENT OF TI IF NF[(iUI3ORl IOU!) OF RIVERWOOD, UFREBY AFFIX MY N,\NIF AND ADDRESS IN SUPP(,)R'I OF flitS PE'I'ITI()N. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE (OPTIONAL) DATE LA ft i ( J\ IAz (? rK -'1L1'J 71 H ' TH 252 Corridor Study Review City of Brooklyn Center City Council Work Session February 22, 2016 Purpose of the Study •Address motor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety, congestion, and connectivity concerns in the corridor •Guide future improvements to TH 252 Study Goals and Objectives Goals •Establish the long-term vision for TH 252 •Identify interim improvements to address existing congestion, safety, and neighborhood connectivity issues at 66th, 70th, and 73rd Aves •Identify expressway or freeway options for future vision •Identify interim safety improvements •Document proposed transit improvements •Recommend project for future competitive federal funding programs •Develop recommendations for implementing interim and long-term improvements Objectives Issues – Existing Conditions Questionnaire 2. Do you believe that there are safety and/or congestion problems at the intersections along TH 252? 3. Should TH 252 be a freeway similar to TH 100, remain as its is, or is there another option that should be considered? Intersection Alternatives and other solutions - Evaluated Intersection Alternatives and other solutions - Evaluated Intersection Alternatives and other solutions - Evaluated Recommendation: Grade Separation Freeway Conversion TH 252 Access Options: MnDOT modelled traffic on local streets Alternative A Alternative A - key issues •4 commercial, 2+ residential properties impacted •Not ideal interchange spacing, but safe and acceptable •No access to/from the north on TH 252 Alternative B Alternative B - key issues •Additional roadway bridge $$ •Additional property acquisition of 9 residential properties •Provides full access combination to TH 252 at 73rd/Brookdale Alternative D Alternative D - key issues •Does not preserve access at 66th to TH 252 for commercial/retail property, viability issues •73rd – increase in traffic to almost 10k daily Alternative F Alternative F - key issues •70th Avenue – increase in traffic to over 10k daily •Does not preserve access at 66th to TH 252 for commercial/retail property, viability issues Alternatives Evaluation Questionnaire 4. Of the alternatives presented/ developed to date, which do you prefer ? 5. What street/access location would you prefer to use to access TH 252 in BC? Questionnaire 1.Which area do you live in? (see map) 6. If you believe that improvements are needed, when do you think they should be implemented? BC’s Recommended Alt’s. A+B TH 252… to come… 1.Henn Co’s Freeway conversion study 2.Environmental Studies and documentation 3.Continued BC involvement and approval 4.Soundwalls (aesthetics, noise, line of site, etc.)(e.g. Hwy 100) 5.Roadway bridges (aesthetics, line of sight, etc.) 6.Traffic – TH 252 traffic volumes will increase Next Steps •Public Involvement – [Is City Council ready to formalize and consider a preferred alternative?] •City Council approval of report [including BC’s preferred option] •Freeway Conversion Study for TH 252 [Hennepin County led]