regular council meeting – agenda #38

Transcription

Monday, September 28, 2015 7:00 p.m. Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 5200 85th Avenue North REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING – AGENDA #38 If due to a disability, you need auxiliary aids or services during a City Council Meeting, please provide the City with 72 hours’ notice by calling 763‐493‐8012 or faxing 763‐493‐8391. Our Mission: Brooklyn Park, a thriving community inspiring pride where opportunities exist for all. Our Goals:
Strong Neighborhoods • Adapting to Changing Demographics • Public Safety Financial Sustainability • Community Image • Focused Redevelopment and Development I. GREETINGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS 1.
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE 7:00 – 7:15 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Public Comment will be limited to 15 minutes (if no one is in attendance for Public Comment, the regular meeting may begin), and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements or for political campaign purposes. Individuals should limit their comments to three minutes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Public Comment 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. 2A. RESPONSE TO PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT PUBLIC COMMENT 2B. 3A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Items specifically identified may be removed from Consent or added elsewhere on the agenda by request of any Council Member.) II. 3B. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECEIPT OF GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 3B.1 Presentation of a Plaque to an Outgoing Commissioner 3B.2 North Hennepin Community College Master Plan Presentation Presentation of Brooklyn Park Community Survey Results 3B.3 A. SURVEY RESULTS STATUTORY BUSINESS AND/OR POLICY IMPLEMENTATION 4.
CONSENT (All items listed under Consent, unless removed from Consent in agenda item 3A, shall be approved by one council motion.) Consent Agenda consists of items delegated to city management or a commission but requires council action by State law, City Charter or city code. These items must conform to a council approved policy, plan, capital improvement project, ordinance or contract. In addition, meeting minutes shall be included. 4.1
SECOND READING of an Ordinance Amending Sections 99.76 and 100.63 of the Brooklyn Park City Code Pertaining to Deferral of Sewer Availability and Water Access Charges A. ORDINANCE B. PROGRAM GUIDELINES 4.2
Approval of Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies and Authorizing the Chief of Police as the Designated Authorized Representative for the Police Department A. RESOLUTION Letters of Credit/Bond Releases, Escrow/Cash Bond Releases 4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8 4.9 Accept Feasibility Report for 2016 Street Reconstruction Project, CIP 4003‐16, and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications A.
RESOLUTION B.
FEASIBILITY REPORT Approve a Tobacco Sales License for Modou Dibba Doing Business As Broadway Food Market Inc Located at 8461 West Broadway Approve a Temporary On‐Sale Liquor License for the Brooklyn Park Rotary Foundation for their Beer Fest to be held October 3, 2015, at 6716 85th Avenue North A.
ROTARY BEER FEST INFORMATIONAL FLYER B.
ROTARY BEER FEST LETTER TO NEIGHBORHOOD C.
EVENT SITE PLAN Authorize Entering into an Agreement with Karges‐Faulconbridge, Inc. for Engineering Services for HVAC Modifications Phase II at the Water Treatment Plant A.
RESOLUTION B.
PROPOSAL LETTER Approve a Tobacco Sales License for Adam Waller & Anthony Foslien Doing Business as The E‐Cig Lounge Located at 9330 Zane Ave N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Approve Agreement for Utility Easement and Grade Separated Crossing with Three Rivers Park District A. RESOLUTION B. AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING C. LOCATION MAP The following items relate to the City Council’s long‐range policy‐making responsibilities and are handled individually for appropriate debate and deliberation. (Those persons wishing to speak to any of the items listed in this section should fill out a speaker’s form and give it to the City Clerk. Staff will present each item, following in which audience input is invited. Discussion will then be closed to the public and directed to the council table for action.) 5. Public Hearings None 6. III. Land Use Actions 6.1 Villas of Rush Creek Trail (Ramsay Properties, LLC) – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment #15‐123 for a Community of 59 Detached Association‐Maintained Single Family Homes on Vacant Land Surrounding 3600, 3608, and 3850 101st Avenue North A.
RESOLUTION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT B.
ORDINANCE – REZONING C.
RESOLUTION – PRELIMINARY PLAT D.
LOCATION MAP E.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION F.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES G.
PLANS 6.2 First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. – Code Amendment #15‐125 Pertaining to Commercial Indoor Recreational Facilities over 2,450 Square Feet A. ORDINANCE B. MAP C. APPLICANT LETTER D. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7.
General Action Items 7.1 Appointment of City Representative to the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council DISCUSSION – These items will be discussion items but the City Council may act upon them during the course of the meeting. 8. Discussion Items 8.1 Franchise Fee Discussion A. AUGUST 24, 2015 RFCA IV. VERBAL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 9A. Council Member reports and announcements 9B. City Manager reports and announcements V. ADJOURNMENT Since we do not have time to discuss every point presented, it may seem that decisions are preconceived. However, background information is provided for the City Council on each agenda item in advance from city staff and appointed commissions, and decisions are based on this information and past experiences. If you are aware of information that has not been discussed, please raise your hand to be recognized. Please speak from the podium. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another meeting. City of Brooklyn Park
Request for Council Action
Agenda Item:
Meeting Date:
September 28, 2015
Originating
Department:
Administration
Agenda Section:
3B.1
Public Presentations/
Proclamations/Receipt of
General Communications
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Prepared By:
Marlene Kryder,
Program Assistant
Attachments:
N/A
Presented By:
Mayor Jeffrey Lunde
Item:
Presentation of a Plaque to an Outgoing Commissioner
City Manager’s Proposed Action:
Recognize an outgoing Commissioner.
Overview:
The purpose of this agenda item is to publicly recognize and thank Matthew Trapp for his service on the
Planning Commission and contributions to the City of Brooklyn Park.
On November 11, 1996, the City Council adopted a policy for recognition of outgoing members to city boards
and commissions. Under the policy, commissioners who serve at least three years on a commission receive a
plaque, while commissioners who serve less than that receive a certificate or letter.
Commissioner being recognized:
Name
Boards/Commissions
Years of Service
Matthew Trapp
Planning Commission
April 2010 – September 2015
Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A
Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A
Attachments: N/A
City of Brooklyn Park
Agenda Item:
Meeting Date:
September 28, 2015
Originating
Department:
Community Development
Agenda Section:
3B.2
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Prepared By:
Attachments:
N/A
Presented By:
Item:
North Hennepin Community College Master Plan Presentation
Kim Berggren, Director of
Jay Stroebel, City Manager
Barbara McDonald, Pres., NHCC
Receive a presentation from the president of North Hennepin Community College.
Overview:
Barbara McDonald, the new president of North Hennepin Community College (NHCC), will present the College’s
updated campus master plan to the City Council. NHCC is located on the east side of West Broadway and 85th
Avenue. The current campus is located south of 85th Avenue. In addition to modifications to the existing facilities,
the College is planning for future development on the north side of 85th Avenue.
Attachments: N/A
Agenda Item:
Meeting Date:
September 28, 2015
Originating
Department:
Administration
Agenda Section:
3B.3
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Prepared By:
Attachments:
1
Presented By:
Item:
Presentation of Brooklyn Park Community Survey Results
Josie Shardlow, Community
Engagement
Jay Stroebel, City Manager
Peter Leatherman,
Morris Leatherman Company
Presentation of the 2015 Community Survey.
Overview:
Peter Leatherman of Morris Leatherman Company will be presenting the 2015 Community Survey results. The
survey results are used in the following ways:
The first is that the community survey results are one of the key performance indicators used by the city to
measure the effectiveness of the Community Engagement Initiative. In 2010, the City Council established the
Mission Statement: “Brooklyn Park, a thriving community inspiring pride where opportunities exist for all,”
along with three key Strategic Objectives:
By 2015, 90% of our community members express pride in being a part of BP.
By 2015, 90% of our community members express that BP is a thriving community.
By 2015, 90% of our community members of BP express that opportunities they need to succeed are available.
These goals have served as the strategic guide for the delivery of effective services and community outreach.
The results from the survey are then shared with the community through a variety of methods.
The second is that the survey also measures resident satisfaction with the delivery of city services. These
results are then compared with past surveys, using the same scientific methodology, as an indicator for how
residents rate staff quality, which is then used to evaluate the way we do business to better meet the needs of
our community.
This year the survey was updated by the Measurement Team and city staff to include new questions on things
like public transportation and residents’ knowledge of their neighborhood’s name.
Attachments:
3B.3A SURVEY RESULTS
3B.3A SURVEY RESULTS Page 2
The Morris Leatherman Company
3128 Dean Court
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
Residential Study
FINAL AUGUST 2015
Hello, I'm __________ of the Morris Leatherman Company, a
nationwide polling firm located in the Twin Cities. We've been
retained by the City of Brooklyn Park to speak with a random
sample of Brooklyn Park residents about issues facing the
community. This survey is being taken because the City Council
and City Staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions
about life in the community. All individual responses will be
held strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample
will be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1.
Approximately how many years have
you lived in Brooklyn Park?
LESS THAN TWO YEARS....7%
TWO TO FIVE YEARS.....14%
SIX TO TEN YEARS......22%
11 TO 20 YEARS........25%
21 TO 30 YEARS........17%
OVER THIRTY YEARS.....15%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....0%
2.
How would you rate the quality of
life in this community -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
EXCELLENT.............21%
GOOD..................67%
ONLY FAIR.............11%
POOR...................1%
3.
What do you like MOST about living
in Brooklyn Park?
NOTHING................4%
SENSE OF COMMUNITY....13%
FRIENDLY PEOPLE.......15%
LOCATION..............21%
CLOSE FAMILY/FRIEND...11%
SHOPPING...............7%
PARKS AND TRAILS.......5%
OPEN SPACES/RURAL......5%
HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD..12%
SCHOOLS................2%
CLOSE TO JOB...........3%
SCATTERED..............2%
1
4.
In general, what do you think is
the most serious issue facing the
community today?
NOTHING...............20%
CRIME.................28%
GANGS..................5%
TOO MUCH LOW-INCOME...10%
HIGH TAXES.............7%
TOO MUCH GROWTH........4%
JOBS/ECONOMY..........11%
HOME FORECLOSURES......2%
CITY SPENDING/GOV'T....2%
SCATTERED..............3%
5.
All in all, do you think things in
Brooklyn Park are generally headed
in the right direction, or do you
feel things are off on the wrong
track?
RIGHT DIRECTION.......86%
WRONG TRACK...........12%
6.
Would you recommend living in the
City of Brooklyn Park to others?
YES...................84%
NO....................15%
7.
How would you rate the general
sense of community among Brooklyn
Park residents -- excellent, good,
only fair, or poor?
EXCELLENT.............18%
GOOD..................62%
ONLY FAIR.............18%
POOR...................2%
8.
Please tell me which of the following do you feel the closest
connection to -- the City of Brooklyn Park as a whole, your neighborhood, your School District or
something else? (IF "SOMETHING
ELSE," ASK:) What would that be?
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK.24%
NEIGHBORHOOD..........62%
SCHOOL DISTRICT........9%
FAMILY/FRIENDS.........2%
CHURCH.................1%
9.
Do you feel accepted, valued and
welcomed in the City of Brooklyn
Park?
YES...................95%
NO.....................4%
IF "NO," ASK: (n=15)
10.
Why do you feel that way?
REFUSED, 7%; UNFRIENDLY PEOPLE, 27%; NEIGHBORS DON’T
SOCIALIZE, 13%; TOO MUCH DIVERSITY, 20%; RACISM, 13%;
GANG ACTIVITY, 7%; NO COMMUNITY PRIDE, 13%.
2
11.
Do you have contact with your neighbors on a frequent basis? (IF
"YES," ASK:) Do you have frequent
contact with 1 to 3 neighbors, 4
to 8 neighbors or more than 8
neighbors?
NO....................24%
YES/1 TO 3............43%
YES/4 TO 8............26%
YES/MORE THAN 8........7%
12.
How often do you and your neighbors A LOT.................16%
do favors for each other – a lot,
SOMETIMES.............45%
sometimes, rarely or never?
RARELY................21%
NEVER.................19%
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0%
In 2014, the City of Brooklyn Park officially named neighborhoods
across the city.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Are you aware of the name of your
neighborhood? (IF “YES,” ASK:)
What is the name of your
neighborhood? (DO NOT READ LIST)
NO....................45%
CORRECT NAME GIVEN....47%
INCORRECT NAME GIVEN...2%
I would feel comfortable in discussing
neighborhood problems with my neighbors.
My neighborhood is a good place to raise
children.
People have pride and ownership in our
neighborhood.
I feel a part of my neighborhood.
I am proud to live in Brooklyn Park.
YES
NO
DKR
84%
16%
1%
87%
11%
2%
84%
89%
91%
14%
11%
8%
2%
0%
1%
IF “NO,” ASK: (n=30)
19.
CRIME, 53%; TOO MANY LOW INCOME PEOPLE, 13%; RACISM,
7%; TOO MUCH DIVERSITY, 10%; NO SENSE OF COMMUNITY,
7%; SCATTERED, 10%.
YES
20.
I have opportunities to succeed in
Brooklyn Park.
3
91%
NO
6%
DKR
3%
21.
CITY DOESN’T HELP SMALL BUSINESSES, 8%; LACK OF JOBS,
79%; GANG ACTIVITY, 8%; LACK OF ENTERTAINMENT, 4%.
22.
Brooklyn Park is a thriving community.
YES
NO
DKR
92%
4%
4%
23.
CRIME, 24%; VACANT BUSINESSES, 35%;
INCOME, 24%; GANG ACTIVITY, 18%.
24.
How would you rate the general
appearance of your neighborhood
-- excellent, good, only fair, or
or poor?
TOO MUCH LOW
EXCELLENT.............22%
GOOD..................68%
ONLY FAIR..............9%
POOR...................1%
For each of the following, please tell me whether the City is too
tough, about right, or not tough enough in enforcing city codes on
the nuisances.
TOO ABO NOT DK/
TOU RIG TOU REF
25.
26.
27.
Messy yards?
Noise?
Storage of garbage cans?
3%
7%
6%
75%
68%
81%
22%
24%
13%
0%
1%
1%
I would like to read you a list of characteristics of a community.
For each one, please tell me if you think Brooklyn Park currently
has too many or too much, too few or too little, or about the
right amount.
MANY
FEW/
ABT
DK/
/MCH
LITT
RGHT
REFD
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Apartments?
Condominiums and townhouses?
Starter homes for young
families?
"Move up" housing?
Higher cost housing?
assisted living for seniors?
nursing homes?
one level housing for seniors
maintained by an association?
4
30%
15%
12%
15%
57%
68%
2%
3%
3%
5%
6%
2%
4%
29%
20%
21%
21%
18%
64%
69%
65%
63%
64%
4%
6%
9%
15%
15%
3%
22%
61%
15%
MANY
/MCH
36.
37.
Affordable housing, defined by
the Metropolitan Council as a
single family home costing less
than $177,500?
Parks and trails?
4%
4%
FEW/
LITT
ABT
RGHT
DK/
REFD
21%
7%
69%
88%
6%
1%
As you may know, the City of Brooklyn Park has been actively
working to encourage development. As I read the following statements, please answer "yes" or "no."
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
There is a good mix of business and residential development in the City.
During the past few years, the appearance
and maintenance of business properties
has improved.
Residents have adequate opportunity to make
their feelings known about proposed
projects.
There is sufficient open and natural space
in the community.
I am satisfied with the new development in
Brooklyn Park during the past two years.
YES
NO
DKR
82%
16%
2%
85%
11%
5%
75%
17%
8%
89%
9%
2%
85%
12%
4%
43.
Are there any types of development
or redevelopment you would like to
see in the city? (IF "YES," ASK:)
What are they?
NO....................39%
RETAIL................18%
RESTAURANTS...........15%
INDUSTRIAL.............2%
JOB PRODUCING.........13%
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING..2%
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING...3%
PARKS/OPEN SPACES......2%
SCATTERED..............4%
44.
Are there any types of development DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
or redevelopment you would strongly NO....................48%
oppose?
APARTMENTS............13%
LOW INCOME............17%
BARS..................10%
ADULT BUSINESSES.......5%
SCATTERED..............5%
As the City of Brooklyn Park continues development and redevelopment....
5
45.
Do you support or oppose the City
providing financial incentives to
attract specific types of development? (WAIT FOR RESPONSE) Do you
feel strongly that way?
STRONGLY SUPPORT......16%
SUPPORT...............64%
OPPOSE................12%
STRONGLY OPPOSE........3%
Moving on....
46.
Do you commute outside of the
city to school or work on a daily
basis?
YES...................49%
NO....................51%
IF “YES,” ASK: (n=194)
49.
47.
In what city is your job or
school located?
MINNEAPOLIS...........43%
SAINT PAUL............19%
MAPLE GROVE...........19%
PLYMOUTH...............5%
COON RAPIDS............5%
BLAINE.................5%
SCATTERED CITIES.......4%
48.
How do you usually commute
to work -- drive alone, ride
in a van or car pool, take
the bus near home, use a park
and ride lot to ride a train
or bus, walk or bike or something else?
DRIVE ALONE...........93%
VAN OR CAR POOL........4%
TAKE BUS...............3%
PARK AND RIDE LOT......0%
WALK/BIKE..............0%
SOMETHING ELSE.........0%
How many times in a typical week do
you or a member of your household
use public transportation – never,
1 to 5 times, 6 to 10 times or more
than 10 times?
NEVER.................86%
1 TO 5................12%
6 TO 10................1%
MORE THAN 10...........1%
IF USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, ASK: (n=55)
50.
Do you primarily use public
transportation to go to work,
school, shopping, entertainment or something else?
6
WORK..................36%
SCHOOL.................9%
SHOPPING..............35%
ENTERTAINMENT.........18%
51.
What is the main reason you use DON’T KNOW/REFUSED.....0%
public transportation?
MORE CONVENIENT.......31%
SAVES TIME.............5%
COST LESS.............29%
LESS STRESSFUL........16%
NO CAR................18%
IF “NEVER” IN QUESTION #49, ASK: (n=345)
52.
53.
Why don’t you use public
transportation?
NEED CAR..............17%
PREFER TO DRIVE.......64%
MORE CONVENIENT........6%
NOT SAFE...............4%
TAKES TOO LONG.........4%
DOESN’T GO WHERE NEED..4%
SCATTERED..............1%
What changes would you make to
public transportation so it is more NOTHING...............66%
convenient for you?
MORE ROUTES...........15%
CONVENIENT LOCATIONS...4%
EXPRESS BUSES..........4%
SCATTERED..............3%
As you may know, the Blue Line Light Rail extension will run
between downtown Minneapolis and Brooklyn Park, continuing to the
airport and Mall of America. It is scheduled to open in 2021.
54.
How familiar are you with this project – very familiar, somewhat
familiar, not too familiar or not
at all familiar?
VERY FAMILIAR.........14%
SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR.....43%
NOT TOO FAMILIAR......30%
NOT AT ALL FAMILIAR...14%
Changing topics....
I am going to read you a list of some of the current services
either directly provided by the city or partially subsidized by
it. For each one, please tell me if you feel it is excellent,
good, only fair or poor. If you don't have an opinion, just say
so.... (ROTATE LIST)
EXCL GOOD FAIR POOR D.K.
55.
56.
57.
Police protection?
Fire protection?
Storm sewer drainage and
flood control?
7
42%
44%
48%
43%
9%
6%
0%
0%
1%
6%
17%
66%
8%
1%
7%
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
Quality of city sanitary sewer
service?
Dependability of city sanitary
sewer service?
Quality of city drinking water?
Dependability of city drinking
water?
Animal control?
Park maintenance?
Recreation programs and services?
Building inspection and permits?
Zoning code enforcement?
Neighborhood street lighting?
Recycling services?
For the next
streets. In
County Roads
as these are
22%
62%
9%
0%
7%
25%
17%
58%
44%
10%
26%
1%
12%
7%
2%
29%
25%
30%
27%
11%
11%
20%
28%
54%
57%
58%
62%
62%
59%
56%
63%
14%
14%
11%
8%
10%
10%
23%
5%
3%
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
4%
16%
18%
0%
4%
four city services, please consider only city
particular, do not consider State Highway 610 or
81, 85th Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard and Zane Avenue,
not maintained by the City of Brooklyn Park.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
City street sweeping?
City street repair and maintenance?
Snow plowing of city streets?
Snow plowing of sidewalks and
trails?
Would you favor or oppose an increase in city property taxes if
it were needed to maintain city
services at their current level?
19%
11%
14%
68%
61%
65%
12%
24%
20%
1%
5%
1%
0%
0%
1%
18%
59%
15%
3%
6%
FAVOR.................52%
OPPOSE................37%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....11%
IF "FAVOR," ASK: (n=208)
74.
How much would you be willing
to pay in additional property
taxes to maintain city services at their current level?
How about $____ per year?
(CHOOSE A RANDOM STARTING
POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN DEPENDING ON RESPONSE) How
about $____ per year?
IF "OPPOSE," ASK: (n=148)
8
NOTHING................4%
$10.00................43%
$20.00................26%
$30.00................10%
$40.00.................4%
$50.00.................3%
$60.00.................1%
DON'T KNOW.............8%
REFUSED................0%
75.
What service would you be
willing to see cut?
NOTHING/CUT WASTE.....49%
ACROSS THE BOARD......10%
ADMINISTRATION........12%
PARKS AND RECREATION...3%
PUBLIC WORKS...........5%
SCATTERED..............6%
76.
In comparison with nearby areas,
do you feel property taxes in
Brooklyn Park are very high, somewhat high, about average, somewhat
low, or very low?
VERY HIGH.............10%
SOMEWHAT HIGH.........30%
ABOUT AVERAGE.........50%
SOMEWHAT LOW...........0%
VERY LOW...............0%
77.
When you consider the property
taxes you pay and the quality of
the city services you receive,
would you rate the general value
of city services as excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
EXCELLENT.............13%
GOOD..................70%
ONLY FAIR.............12%
POOR...................2%
Moving on....
78.
Other than voting, do you feel
that if you wanted to, you could
have a say about the way things
are run in this community?
YES...................75%
NO....................22%
IF "NO," ASK: (n=88)
79.
Why do you feel you cannot
have a say?
DON'T LISTEN..........38%
DO WHAT THEY WANT.....41%
NOT AWARE OF HOW......11%
PREFER TO VOTE........10%
80.
How much do you feel you know
about the work of the Mayor and
City Council -- a great deal, a
fair amount, very little, or
nothing?
GREAT DEAL.............8%
FAIR AMOUNT...........40%
VERY LITTLE...........35%
NOTHING...............17%
81.
From what you know, do you approve
or disapprove of the job the Mayor
and City Council are doing? (WAIT
FOR RESPONSE) And, do you feel
strongly that way?
STRONGLY APPROVE......10%
APPROVE...............68%
DISAPPROVE............10%
STRONGLY DISAPPROVE....3%
9
82.
How much first-hand contact have
you had with the Brooklyn Park
City Staff -- quite a lot, some,
very little, or none?
QUITE A LOT............6%
SOME..................36%
VERY LITTLE...........39%
NONE..................19%
83.
From what you have seen, heard, or
experienced, how would you rate
the job of the Brooklyn Park City
Staff -- excellent, good, only
fair, or poor?
EXCELLENT.............10%
GOOD..................66%
ONLY FAIR.............15%
POOR...................1%
Let's talk about park and recreation opportunities in Brooklyn
Park....
84.
How would you rate park and recreation facilities in Brooklyn Park
-- excellent, good, only fair, or
poor?
EXCELLENT.............28%
GOOD..................66%
ONLY FAIR..............4%
POOR...................0%
IF "ONLY FAIR" OR "POOR," ASK: (n=17)
85.
Could you tell me one or two reasons why you feel that
way?
NEED UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE, 12%; LITTER/TRASH, 35%;
OLD PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, 18%; LOITERING TEENS, 12%;
NEED BATHROOMS, 12%; GANGS, 6%; SCATTERED, 6%.
For each facility or amenity, please tell me if you or members of
your household use it. Then for each one you use, please tell me
if you would rate it as excellent, good, only fair, or poor?
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Trails?
Large community parks?
Athletic complexes?
Smaller neighborhood parks?
Golf courses?
The Community Activities
Center?
Historical Farm?
Disc golf course?
Dog parks?
Skate park?
Zanewood Recreation Center?
10
NOT
USE
USE
EXC
USE
GOO
USE
FAI
USE
POO
DK/
REF
24%
35%
47%
30%
56%
32%
30%
22%
31%
24%
42%
32%
26%
35%
18%
2%
3%
4%
5%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
51%
60%
72%
60%
73%
63%
19%
18%
10%
17%
10%
12%
26%
17%
15%
19%
13%
22%
4%
4%
1%
2%
2%
3%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
97.
Are there any current recreational
facilities you would like to see
expanded?
NO....................94%
SCATTERED..............4%
98.
Are there any recreational facilities not currently offered, you
would like to see?
NO....................96%
SCATTERED..............3%
99.
Do you feel the current mix of rec- YES...................91%
reational opportunities in the city NO.....................8%
sufficiently meets the needs of
members of your household?
Moving on....
I would like to read you a short list of public safety problems.
100. Please tell me which one you consider to be the greatest
problem in Brooklyn Park? If you feel that none of these
problems are serious in Brooklyn Park, just say so. (READ
LIST)
101. Which do you consider to be the second major concern in the
city? Again, if you feel that none of the remaining prob
lems are serious in the city, just say so. (DELETE FIRST
CHOICE AND RE-READ LIST)
FIRST
SECOND
Juvenile crime, such as vandalism........18%........20%
Gangs....................................14%........11%
Violent crime............................11%........10%
Traffic safety...........................11%........13%
Drugs....................................11%........13%
Business crimes, such as shoplifting and check fraud..............9%.........6%
Residential crimes, such as
burglary and theft...................9%.........8%
ALL EQUALLY...............................6%.........6%
NONE OF THE ABOVE.........................8%.........9%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED........................4%.........5%
102. Do you feel that crime in Brooklyn
Park has increased, decreased or
remained about the same during the
past few years?
INCREASED.............29%
DECREASED.............15%
REMAINED THE SAME.....54%
As I read the following statements about public safety in Brooklyn
Park, please answer "yes" or"no." (READ LIST)
11
103. I have an overall feeling of safety
in Brooklyn Park.
104. I would feel safe walking in my
neighborhood alone at night.
YES
NO
DKR
84%
16%
1%
79%
19%
3%
105. Why do you feel that way?
NOT SAFE ANYWHERE, 24%; VULERNABLE DUE TO AGE/HEALTH,
7%; LOITERING PEOPLE, 4%; GANG ACTIVITY, 16%; CRIME,
27%; UNRULY TEENS, 7%; SHOOTINGS, 4%; NO STREET
LIGHTS, 7%; SCATTERED, 4%.
106. Children are safe playing in our
City parks.
89%
8%
3%
107. Why do you feel that way?
GANG ACTIVITY, 27%; UNRULY TEENS, 9%; SHOOTINGS, 18%;
LITTER/TRASH/GLASS, 6%; NOT SAFE/UNSUPERVISED, 6%;
PREDATORS IN AREA, 9%; CRIME, 18%; BULLYING 6%.
YES
108. The Brooklyn Park Police Department
responds to calls in a timely manner.
89%
109. My household is part of our area's
Neighborhood Watch.
61%
110. I trust the City's public safety response
and the services rendered.
93%
NO
DKR
6%
5%
36%
3%
7%
1%
Moving on....
111. What is your principal source of
information about city government
and its activities?
12
UNSURE/NOTHING.........3%
CITY NEWSLETTER.......37%
LOCAL NEWSPAPER.......19%
STAR TRIBUNE...........7%
CITY WEBSITE...........8%
E-MAIL.................6%
CABLE TELEVISION.......6%
MEETINGS...............3%
WORD OF MOUTH.........11%
112. How would you prefer to receive
information about city government
and its activities? (PROBE)
UNSURE/NOTHING.........2%
CITY NEWSLETTER.......36%
LOCAL NEWSPAPER.......14%
STAR TRIBUNE...........4%
CITY WEBSITE...........8%
E-MAIL.................9%
CABLE TELEVISION.......6%
MEETINGS...............3%
WORD OF MOUTH.........11%
MAILINGS...............6%
Thinking about both the quality and the quantity of information
you receive from the City of Brooklyn Park....
113. In general, do you receive too
much information from the City of
Brooklyn Park, about the right
amount, or too little information?
TOO MUCH...............1%
ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT....90%
TOO LITTLE............10%
Thinking specifically about crime data....
114. In general, do you receive too
much information from the City of
Brooklyn Park, about the right
amount, or too little information
about crime data?
TOO MUCH...............1%
ABOUT RIGHT AMOUNT....79%
TOO LITTLE............20%
115. Do you recall receiving the City
newsletter, titled "Park Pages,"
during the past year?
YES...................83%
NO....................17%
IF "YES," ASK: (n=330)
116. Do you or any members of your
household regularly read it?
YES...................90%
NO....................10%
117. Do you recall receiving the City
Recreation and Parks Brochure during the past year?
YES...................73%
NO....................26%
118. How would you evaluate its
usefulness -- excellent,
good, only fair, or poor?
13
EXCELLENT.............17%
GOOD..................68%
ONLY FAIR.............11%
POOR...................1%
During the past six months....
119. Would you say you watch City Council FREQUENTLY.............3%
meetings – frequently, occasionally, OCCASIONALLY..........19%
rarely or never?
RARELY................24%
NEVER.................54%
120. Have you watched the city's television show "Brooklyn Park Now?”
YES...................36%
NO....................64%
121. Have you used any of the City’s
social media, such as Facebook or
Twitter?
YES...................19%
NO....................81%
122. How would you rate the City’s EXCELLENT.............75%
use of social media – excelGOOD..................21%
lent, good, only fair or poor? ONLY FAIR..............4%
POOR...................0%
IF “GOOD,” “ONLY FAIR,” OR “POOR,” ASK: (n=19)
123. How could the city’s use of social media be
improved?
UNSURE, 53%; PARKS AND RECREATION INFORMATION, 5%;
CURRENT NEWS, 16%; NEWS VIDEOS, 5%; GEAR TOWARDS
YOUTH, 11%; SPECIFIC NEIGHOBORHOOD NEWS, 11%.
Now, just a few more questions for demographic purposes....
Could you please tell me how many people in each of the following
age groups live in your household. Let's start oldest to youngest, and be sure to include yourself....
124. First, persons 65 or over?
NONE..................83%
ONE....................7%
TWO OR MORE...........10%
125. Adults under 65?
NONE..................12%
ONE...................14%
TWO...................62%
THREE OR MORE.........12%
126. School-aged children or preschoolers?
NONE..................58%
ONE...................18%
14
TWO...................18%
THREE OR MORE..........7%
127. Do you reside in an apartment,
townhouse or condominium, or a
detached single family home?
APARTMENT.............24%
TOWNHOUSE/CONDO.......20%
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME....55%
128. What is your age, please?
18-24..................4%
25-34.................20%
35-44.................24%
45-54.................24%
55-64.................16%
65 AND OVER...........12%
REFUSED................0%
129. What is the last grade of formal
education you completed?
HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS....5%
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE..24%
VO-TECH/TECH COLLEGE..10%
SOME COLLEGE..........19%
COLLEGE GRADUATE......33%
POST-GRADUATE..........8%
REFUSED................1%
130. Which of the following categories
represents your ethnicity -White, African-American, HispanicLatino, Asian-Pacific Islander,
Native American, or something
else? (IF "SOMETHING ELSE," ASK:)
What would that be?
WHITE.................51%
AFRICAN-AMERICAN......25%
HISPANIC-LATINO........7%
ASIAN-PACIFIC ISLANDE.15%
NATIVE AMERICAN........1%
MIXED/BI-RACIAL........0%
DON'T KNOW.............0%
REFUSED................0%
131. What is the primary language
spoken in your home?
ENGLISH...............84%
SPANISH................5%
SCATTERED ASIAN........7%
SOMALI.................2%
SCATTERED..............2%
132. Is your pre-tax yearly household
income over or under $50,000?
UNDER $25,000.........13%
$25,001-$50,000.......21%
15
IF "OVER," ASK:
Is it over $75,000? (IF "YES,"
ASK:) Is it over $100,000?
IF "UNDER," ASK:
Is it under $25,000?
$50,001-$75,000.......29%
$75,001-$100,000......16%
OVER $100,000..........6%
DON'T KNOW.............1%
REFUSED...............14%
133. Do you own or rent your present
residence?
OWN...................69%
RENT..................31%
REFUSED................0%
134. Gender.
MALE..................49%
FEMALE................51%
135. REGION OF CITY:
EAST/NORTH............22%
EAST/SOUTH............18%
CENTRAL/NORTH.........17%
CENTRAL/SOUTH.........16%
WEST/NORTH.............5%
WEST/SOUTH............23%
16
Agenda Item:
4.1
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
Attachments:
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Alisha Gray, Business
SECOND READING
Prepared By:
Development Coordinator
Kimberly Berggren, Director of
2
Presented By:
SECOND READING of an Ordinance Amending Sections 99.76 and 100.63 of the Brooklyn
Park City Code Pertaining to Deferral of Sewer Availability and Water Access Charges
MOTION ____________, SECOND ____________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT ON SECOND READING
ORDINANCE #2015-_____ AMENDING SECTIONS 99.76 AND 100.63 OF THE BROOKYLN PARK CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO DEFFERAL OF SEWER AVAILABILITY AND WATER ACCESS CHARGES.
Overview:
At its meeting on September 14, 2015, the City Council unanimously approved the first reading of an
ordinance amending sections 99.76 and 100.63 of the Brooklyn Park City Code Pertaining to the deferral of
sewer availability and water access charges and authorized staff to administer the Sewer Availability Charge
and Water Access Charge Deferral Program.
Background:
The attached ordinance amendment adds language to allow the deferral of the City’s Water Access Charge
and the Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge through the Payment Deferral Program. The Sewer
Availability and Water Access Charge Payment Deferral Program Guidelines are attached.
Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider:
•
•
•
Approve the amendment as proposed
Modify and approve the proposed amendment
Make no change to the ordinance
Attachments:
4.1A
4.1B
ORDINANCE
PROGRAM GUIDELINES
4.1A ORDINANCE
Page 2
ORDINANCE #2015ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 99.76 AND 100.63
OF THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY CODE PERTAINING TO DEFERRAL
OF SEWER AVAILABILITY AND WATER ACCESS CHARGES
Text with strikeout is proposed for deletion
Underlined text is proposed for insertion
The City of Brooklyn Park does ordain:
Section 1. Section 99.76 of the Brooklyn Park City Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 99.76 SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES.
(A) In all areas where sanitary sewer service is available, connection charges must be paid before a building
permit is issued.
(B) In all areas and for all uses where sanitary sewer service is available, whenever service availability
charge(s) (SAC unit/s) must be charged and paid to Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, a sewer
connection charge must be paid to the city in the amount established in the fee resolution set forth in the
Appendix to this code except as otherwise allowed to be deferred pursuant to the City’s Sewer Availability
Charge and Water Access Charge Payment Deferral Program.
Section 2. Section 100.63 of the Brooklyn Park City Code is amended to read as follows:
§ 100.63 WATER ACCESS CHARGE (WAC CHARGE).
(A) In all areas and for all uses where city water service is available, at the time an application is filed with
the city for a new or enlarged water service, or fire suppression system water service, a water access charge
(WAC) must be paid to the city except as otherwise allowed to be deferred pursuant to the City’s Sewer
Availability Charge and Water Access Charge Payment Deferral Program. This charge does not apply to water
service maintenance work unless the water service is enlarged.
(B) This section is effective June 1, 1999. Effective on the first day of June of each calendar year beginning
June 1, 1999, the WAC is established in the amounts as established by the fee resolution, set forth in the
Appendix to this code. A credit for previously paid WAC may be given when a building is remodeled or
demolished.
4.1B SEWER AVAILABILITY AND WATER ACCESS PAYMENT DEFERRAL PROGRAM GUIDELINES
Page 3
Sewer Availability and Water Access Charge
Payment Deferral Program
In order to minimize the impact of the payment of the Water Access Charge (WAC) to new or expanding
businesses within the City of Brooklyn Park, the City will provide a deferral option to pay the WAC fees
over time versus at the time the building permit is issued. This program will be in conjunction with the
Metropolitan Council’s Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Deferral Program adopted in 2013. The
Metropolitan Council’s program allows for the deferment of SAC fees for small businesses that receive a
SAC determination of 10 SAC units or less prior to SAC credits being applied. The WAC program will
follow the same guidelines as the SAC program established by the Metropolitan Council.
Under the new program, the City of Brooklyn Park will enter into an agreement with eligible business
and/or property owner to spread the SAC and/or WAC payments over a five year term. Eligible
businesses will be required to pay at least 20 percent down plus the first monthly payment at the time
application. Property owners will be billed on a monthly basis with the regular utility bill for a period of five
(5) years after the initial down payment. The interest rate applied to the differed balance will be fixed at 3
percent. Businesses and property owners will have the option to defer SAC unit fees, WAC unit fees, or
both. The program is divided into two groups:
•
•
Met Council Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Deferral Program: 5 year term; 3% interest;
20% plus the first monthly payment paid up-front; secured by the Deferred Payment Agreement;
eligible to businesses with a SAC unit determination at or below ten (10) units. This program is
established and regulated by a master deferral agreement executed between the City and
Metropolitan Council.
City of Brooklyn Park Water Access Charge (WAC) Deferral Program: 5 year term, 3%
interest; 20% plus the first monthly payment up front; secured by the Deferred Payment
Agreement; eligible to businesses with a WAC unit determination at or below ten (10) units. This
program is established by City ordinance and is intended to parallel the Metropolitan program
guidelines.
Participants in the program are allowed to defer a maximum of ten (10) SAC and/or ten (10) WAC units.
Businesses with SAC and WAC determinations exceeding the program limit will be considered on a case
by case basis. The business owner and property owner must agree to participate and fill out an
application form with the requested information and execute the Deferred Payment Agreement. The
proposed deferral structure is outlined below.
Deferral Structure:
The structure of the deferral includes, but is not limited to the following requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The SAC determination for the business is ten (10) units or less prior to SAC credits.
The WAC determination for the business is ten (10) units or less prior to WAC credits.
The property must be located in Brooklyn Park.
The deferral term is five (5) years.
Interest rate will be fixed at 3%.
A down payment, equal to 20% of the total fee for SAC and WAC after credits are applied, plus
the first monthly payment, is due at the time of application
4.1B Page 4
7. Property owners and/or business will be billed on a monthly basis.
8. Property owner and/or business owner must complete an application and execute the Deferred
Payment Agreement to be eligible for the program.
9. In the case of a business closure, the business or property owner must notify the City’s Business
Development Coordinator. The City will verify the closure and future payment obligations will be
waived.
10. In the event of a default, any outstanding payments will be assessed to the property and the
property owner waives the right to contest the assessment.
11. SAC/WAC credits are non-transferable.
Ineligible Conditions:
•
•
•
•
The fee owner’s property taxes are delinquent.
The business is not in good standing with the State of Minnesota, or is in violation of Brooklyn
Park City Code.
The property is not located within the City of Brooklyn Park.
The business does not does not meet the definition of eligible commercial properties in the
Metropolitan Council’s SAC Deferral Program and the City of Brooklyn Park WAC Deferral
Program.
Sample Payment Schedule:
Below is a sample payment schedule for an eligible small business with a determination of 5 SAC and 5
WAC units, before credits. Under the terms of the program, the property owner will pay to the City an
initial payment of 20% of the total units, or $4,360, at the time of the building permit. The remaining
deferral payment will be repaid at a fixed rate of 3% over a five (5) year term.
Fee
Calculation
SAC Fee*
5 SAC units x
$2,485 (in
2015)
5 WAC units x
$1,875 (in
2015)
10 SAC/WAC
combined
units
WAC Fee*
Total
Total
Amount
Due
Payable over
5 –year term (plus 3%
interest)
$12,425
Payable at
time of
application
(20)%
$2,485
Estimated
monthly payment
without interest
$9,940
$166
$9,375
$1,875
$7,500
$125
$21,800
$4,360
$17,440
$291
*SAC and WAC Fees are determined annually and are subject to change.
If you have any questions or would like to receive an application for the Metropolitan Council SAC
Deferral Program or City of Brooklyn Park WAC Deferral Program, please contact Alisha Gray, Business
Development Coordinator, at alisha.gray@brooklynpark.org or 763-493-8145.
If you have questions regarding the building permits please contact the building division at 763-488-6379.
Agenda Item:
4.2
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
X
Ordinance:
Attachments:
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Police Department
Lorelei Meyer, Support Services
N/A
Prepared By:
Manager
Lorelei Meyer, Support Services
1
Presented By:
Manager
Approval of Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for
Governmental Agencies and Authorizing the Chief of Police as the Designated
Authorized Representative for the Police Department
MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION
#2015-_____ APPROVING THE MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES
FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS THE DESIGNATED AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
Overview:
The Minnesota Judicial Branch offers New Minnesota Government Access (New MGA) accounts to
government agencies. New MGA accounts allow government agencies to view appropriate electronic court
records and documents stored in the Minnesota Court Information System for cases in Minnesota district
courts.
In order to move forward with this initiative, it is necessary for the City of Brooklyn Park to sign a “Master
Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies” and apply for access.
This new “Master Subscriber Agreement” will supersede the previous agreement with State Court and
Hennepin County District Court. The updated Master Subscriber Agreement is necessary to ensure that the
use of these records and documents are limited to the legitimate governmental needs of our governmental
agency.
To complete the application process, the Master Subscriber Agreement must include documented verification
of authority to sign on behalf of and bind the agency. The Police Department is requesting that Chief of Police,
Craig Enevoldsen, or his successor, as the designated Authorized Representative for the Police Department.
The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any subsequent amendment or agreement that may
be required by the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies
including authorizing access to MGA Accounts on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department or any
document that may be required to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered by the
State.
4.2 Page 2
The Council may authorize execution of the Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services
for Governmental Agencies to participate in the new MGA initiative and allowing for appropriate access to
court data.
If the Council chooses not to authorize the execution of the Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota
Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies, our agency would not have access to new MGA which will be
a requirement in the future as the Minnesota Judicial Branch is solely an electronic court.
Budgetary/Fiscal Issues:
No fees involved in new MGA access.
Attachments:
4.2A
RESOLUTION
4.2A RESOLUTION
Page 3
RESOLUTION 2015RESOLUTION APPROVING A MASTER SUBSCRIBER AGREEMENT
FOR MINNESOTA COURT DATA SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE AS THE
DESIGNATED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Judicial Branch offers New Minnesota Government Access (New MGA)
accounts to government agencies. New MGA accounts allow government agencies to view appropriate
electronic court records and documents stored in the Minnesota Court Information System for cases in
Minnesota district courts; and
WHEREAS, in order to move forward with this initiative, it is necessary for the City of Brooklyn Park to
sign a “Master Subscriber Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies” and
apply for access. This new “Master Subscriber Agreement” will supersede the previous agreement with State
Court and Hennepin County District Court. The updated Master Subscriber Agreement is necessary to ensure
that the use of these records and documents are limited to the legitimate governmental needs of our
governmental agency; and
WHEREAS, to complete the application process, the Master Subscriber Agreement must include
documented verification of authority to sign on behalf of and bind the agency. The Police Department is
requesting that Chief of Police, Craig Enevoldsen, or his successor, as the designated Authorized
Representative for the Police Department. The Authorized Representative is also authorized to sign any
subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies, including MGA Accounts on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Park or any document that may be required to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered
by the State.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park hereby authorizes
the Police Chief, or his or successors, as the signing authority to authorize execution of the Master Subscriber
Agreement for Minnesota Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies, including authorizing access to
MGA Accounts on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Park Police Department and is also authorized to sign any
subsequent amendment or agreement that may be required by the State of Minnesota and the Minnesota
Court Data Services for Governmental Agencies, including MGA Accounts on behalf of the City of Brooklyn
Park or any document that may be required to maintain the City’s connection to the systems and tools offered
by the State.
Agenda Item:
4.3
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
N/A
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
JoAnn Millette, Development
Specialist
Kim Berggren, Director of
Ordinance:
N/A
Prepared By:
Attachments:
N/A
Presented By:
Item:
Letters of Credit/Bond Releases, Escrow/Cash Bond Releases
MOTION ___________, SECOND ___________, TO REDUCE THE ON AND OFF-SITE BONDING BY $1,045,900
AND REDUCE THE ENGINEERING ESCROW BY $19,000 FOR SATISFACTORY PROGRESS OF THE “PRAIRIE CARE”
PROJECT #14-101 LOCATED AT 9400 ZANE AVENUE N FOR IRET, PROPERTIES.
The Prairie Care project is completed and now open. The City will continue to hold $5,000 cash bond and
$1,642 engineering escrow until the landscaping can be re-inspected in the spring to make sure it survived the
winter.
MOTION ___________, SECOND ___________, TO REDUCE THE CASH BOND BY $24,000 AND REDUCE THE
ENGINEERING ESCROW BY $12,000 FOR SATISFACTORY PROGRESS OF THE “MISSISSIPPI GARDENS” PROJECT
#13-122 LOCATED AT 9500 WEST RIVER ROAD FOR RIVERBEND PROPERTIES.
The Mississippi Gardens project is completed and now open. The City will continue to hold $5,000 cash bond
and $1,900 engineering escrow until the landscaping can be re-inspected in the spring to make sure it survived
the winter.
MOTION ___________, SECOND ___________, TO RELEASE THE REMAINING ENGINEERING ESCROW ($750.55)
FOR SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE “GRAYBAR ELECTRIC” PROJECT #15-118 LOCATED AT 7601 SETZLER
PARKWAY FOR GRAYBAR ELECTRIC.
Attachments: N/A
Agenda Item:
4.4
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
X
Ordinance:
N/A
Attachments:
2
Presented By:
Jesse Struve, City Engineer
Accept Feasibility Report for 2016 Street Reconstruction Project, CIP 4003-16, and Order
Preparation of Plans and Specifications
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Operations and Maintenance
Engineering Services Division
Prepared By:
MOTION _______________, SECOND _______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION
#2015-_____ ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR 2016 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CIP 4003-16,
AND ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Overview:
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) staff rate the condition of city roadways on an annual basis. Based on
these ratings, O&M has an extensive pavement rehabilitation program that utilizes seal coating, overlays, and
mill and overlay methods to extend the life of the city’s roads. Unfortunately, even with proper maintenance,
roadways eventually need to be reconstructed.
Based on the annual street condition assessments, there is a portion of the southwest part of town in need of
rehabilitation beyond the city’s normal maintenance plan. The adopted 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) includes a large area to be reconstructed between 2016 and 2019 (see attached). Staff analyzed the
proposed reconstruction area and divided it into four years based on the condition of the pavement,
watermain, and sanitary sewer.
The feasibility outlines the existing conditions, preliminary design considerations and alternatives, provides an
estimate of probable cost, and outlines estimated assessments to the residents. Staff held two neighborhood
meetings prior to bringing the feasibility report back to Council. The first meeting was orientated toward
listening to concerns (drainage, sight lines, etc.) and asking residents if there are any amenities they would like
to see installed (sidewalks, trails, etc.). Staff incorporated what we heard from the residents into the
preliminary design and the feasibility report. The second meeting provided the residents the findings of the
feasibility report.
There were two items being presented to the Council that are different than what was presented to residents
at the September 15, 2015 neighborhood meeting. The first item involved the number of residential
equivalency units (REUs) being assessed. At the neighborhood meeting, the residents were shown 219.5 REUs
were going to be assessed. Unfortunately, while doing the assessment roll, it was discovered the three twin
homes only had a singular PID number, but the feasibility report assumed the twin homes would have
4.4 Page 2
two PID numbers. This resulted in the total REU count to decrease from 219.5 to 216.5 and resulted in the
estimated road construction assessments increasing from $11,200 to $11,350. The second item that is
different is the assessment impacts of the sidewalk addition. At the neighborhood meeting September 15,
2015, staff presented the impact of the sidewalk would increase the assessments for a full REU by $370. This
accounted for the entire cost being assessed where only 50% should have been assessed. Therefore, the
addition of the sidewalk would increase the estimated assessment by $185.
A preliminary schedule of the project is as follows:
• July 13, 2015 – Council authorizes Feasibility Report
• August 6, 2015 – First Meeting with Residents
• September 15, 2015 – Second Meeting with Residents
• September 28, 2015 – Council Accepts Feasibility Report and Orders Plans and Specifications
• January 2016 – Meeting with Residents to Outline Preliminary Plans
• February 2016 – Council Accepts Plans and Specifications, Sets Public Hearing, and Orders Ad for Bid
• March 2016 – Public Hearing and Open Bids
• April 2016 – Award Contract
• May 2016 – Start Construction
There are two primary alternatives to consider with the feasibility report. The first one is the width of the
road. Staff is recommending on reducing the road by 2 feet to save approximately 3.4% and reduce the
assessments from $11,350 to $10,970. At the neighborhood meeting, there were a few residents who spoke
up against reducing the road width. The second item is staff is recommending to add a sidewalk along
Edgemont Boulevard from 63rd Avenue N. to Cherokee Drive N. in accordance to the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan. This would increase the estimated assessment by $185.
Staff will do a neighborhood survey to see if there is support for either item and will bring the survey result
back to Council at the October 12, 2015 meeting to make a final decision.
According to the Feasibility Report, the total construction cost is estimated to be $7,457,000. This is broken
down into $4,928,000 for street reconstruction costs, $2,447,000 for utility replacement and rehabilitation,
and $82,000 for sidewalk installation. If the project moves forward, 50% of the $4,928,000 for street
reconstruction costs and $82,000 for sidewalk installation will be assessed to the benefitting properties. The
final amount to be assessed will be determined at the Public Hearing.
Attachments:
4.4A
4.4B
RESOLUTION
FEASIBILITY REPORT
4.4A RESOLUTION
Page 3
RESOLUTION #2015RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR 2016 STREET RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT, CIP 4003-16, AND ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a report has been given by the City Engineer to the City Council on September 28, 2015
recommending the following improvements to wit:
CIP 4003-16: 2016 Street Reconstruction Project, bounded by Cherokee Drive N. on the north, 62nd
Avenue N. on the south, State Highway 169 on the west, and Boone Avenue N. on the east.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park.
1.
The Council will consider the aforesaid improvements in accordance with the report and the
assessment of property abutting or within said boundaries which benefit for all or a portion of the
cost of these improvements pursuant to M.S.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111 at an estimated total
cost of the improvement as shown.
2.
The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for this project and is hereby authorized to
prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements.
4.4B FEASIBILITY REPORT Page 4
ENGINEERING STUDY – CIP 4003-16
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
2016 STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
SUMMARY:
The project involves localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, upgrades to
the storm sewer and watermain systems, replacement of concrete curb and
gutter, potentially adding limited sidewalk, and complete reconstruction of
bituminous pavement surfaces.
The estimated total project cost is
$7,540,000. The estimated cost to reconstruct the roadway to the existing
width is estimated to be $4,928,000.
According to the City’s Special Assessment Policy, half of the street
construction costs will be funded through special assessments at a rate of
approximately $11,350 per residential equivalent unit (REU). The road width
can be reduced by 2’ and it will reduce the assessment to $10,970 per REU.
The City will need to issue bonds to cover the remaining balance of the
construction costs.
Sidewalk improvements are estimated to cost $82,000 and if included will be
funded through the special assessments at a rate of $190 per REU. Utility
improvements and repairs amount to $2,530,000 and will be funded through
the respective utility funds. The project can be completed during the 2016
construction season. Staff believes the project is feasible, cost effective, and
necessary to maintain a livable environment and a sound public
infrastructure.
LOCATION:
The project includes Edgemont Boulevard, Decatur Avenue N, Edgemont
Circle N, Cavell Avenue N, North Brook Circle N, North Brook Avenue N,
Bass Creek Court N, and Bass Creek Avenue N (Figure 1).
4.4B Page 5
Feasibility Study
2016 Street Reconstruction Project, CIP 4003-16
September 28, 2015
Figure 1. Project Area Map
INITIATION & ISSUES:
The 2016 Street Reconstruction Project was initiated by the Operations and
Maintenance Department. This area was identified in the 2015-2019 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP).
This project addresses updating aging
infrastructure with improvements associated with the pavement condition,
storm water, sanitary sewer, and watermain systems, and pedestrian
facilities.
All Engineering projects are reviewed for compatibility with the City of
Brooklyn Park 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update (the “Plan”) and the
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Streets
The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed in the late
1970’s to early 1980’s. All of the streets in the neighborhood currently have
concrete curb and gutter and the average roadway width is approximately 32
feet as measured from the back of curb. The typical street section has about
6” of bituminous pavement over a poorly graded sand base. The pavement
condition varies throughout the neighborhood, but it is relatively poor
condition.
Photo 1. Existing Pavement Condition
4.4B Page 6
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
Photo 2. Existing Pavement Condition
The City of Brooklyn Park evaluates the roads on a yearly basis. This area
was identified in need of a full reconstruction in 2008 and was first included in
the 2009-2013 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In the 2009-2013 CIP this
area was scheduled to be reconstructed in 2012.
Operations and
Maintenance staff felt the work could be delayed a few years.
The pavement throughout these streets is near the end of its useful life. The
costs to maintain and repair the roadways have steadily increased, and seal
coating or overlaying are not feasible options.
Traffic Data
City staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at one location (Edgemont
Blvd) within the neighborhood. Average daily traffic volumes 800 cars per day
with 85th percentile speed at 32.7mph.
Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer system consists of 8-inch PVC and 12” RCP pipe
installed between 1972-1978. Historical records indicate there have been few
sewer back-ups or blockages in the area.
Watermain
The existing watermain system consists of 6-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP)
installed between 1972 and 1978. The overall system has experienced some
watermain breaks. The fire hydrants are original to the neighborhood.
4.4B Page 7
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
Storm Sewer
The storm sewer system is located within the legal boundary of the Shingle
Creek Watershed Management Commission. Further evaluation will be done
by staff regarding drainage issues identified at the neighborhood meetings.
Private Utilities
Providers of privately owned gas, electric, communications, and cable
television utilities are present in the neighborhood. The utilities are a
combination of overhead and underground facilities located in backyards or
along the boulevard.
Street lighting consists of standard “cobra” style mounted on wood and
fiberglass poles located throughout the project area.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are currently located along both sides of Boone Avenue N, along
the south side of 63rd Avenue N, and along the north side of 63rd Avenue N
from Boone to Cavell Court.
Landscaping
Some properties have vegetation, irrigation systems, dog fences, hardscapes
(such as boulders and retaining walls), or other landscaped items within the
City right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items may interfere with some
of the proposed infrastructure improvements and may need to be removed in
order to complete the necessary work. Staff will work directly with affected
homeowners to correct anything impacted.
Resident Involvement
The City had the first open house on August 6, 2015. The meeting was a fact
gathering opportunity where staff asked residents to provide feedback about
items they would want accounted for in the preliminary design and cost
estimate. This meeting was attended by 40 residents representing 26
different properties.
The following is a summary of feedback received from residents at the first
open house:
• The road is in poor condition and needs to be addressed.
• There are many areas with poor drainage.
• There are some sump pumps that discharge in winter that causes icy
conditions on the road.
• Sidewalks should not be included everywhere.
A second open house was held on September 15, 2015. At this meeting staff
presented an overview of potential costs for different design options. Items
discussed included reconstructing the road at its current width, reducing the
width of the road by 2’, and adding a sidewalk on Edgemont Blvd from 63rd
Ave N to Cherokee Dr. Staff provided the residents with estimated
construction costs for each option and estimated assessment amounts for all
4.4B Page 8
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
properties. Residents were also provided an update on the progress of
franchise fees. This meeting was attended by 27 residents representing 22
different properties.
The following is a summary of feedback received from residents at the
second open house:
•
•
•
While there was one person who opposed narrowing the street width,
many did not provide comments about this topic.
Most if not all of the residents preferred if the project was funded with
franchise fees.
There were no discussions regarding the potential sidewalk addition.
Staff Input
The Operations and Maintenance Department has concerns about narrowing
the road width 2’. Specifically there may be issues plowing snow if cars are
parked in the roads. Narrowing the width by 2’ would reduce both initial costs
and long term maintenance costs.
Operations and Maintenance also expressed concerns about the winter
maintenance of the potential sidewalk along Edgemont Blvd. According to
the City’s policy, responsibility for shoveling this sidewalk would be up to the
residents who live along it.
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS:
Streets
The pavement section is proposed to be completely reconstructed to the
subgrade. The existing pavement may be recycled for use as base material in
the new roadway. The proposed road section will consist of geotextile fabric,
18” of select granular material, 6” of recycled or virgin gravel, 2” of bituminous
base, and 2” of bituminous wear course. The reconstructed gravel and
pavement sections will meet the requirements of a minimum 30-year design
life based on projected traffic loadings. With prescriptive maintenance
procedures, including regular seal coating and periodic thin overlays, the
design life can be extended considerably.
The existing surmountable curb and gutter will be replaced with a new B618
style curb (typical curb throughout the city with a vertical face). The typical
road width is 32’ (back of curb to back of curb) but there is about a 3.4%
construction cost savings if the road is reduced to 30’ (back of curb to back of
curb.
It is staff’s recommendation to move forward with reducing the width of the
roads from 32’ (back to back) to 30’ (back to back). This will reduce upfront
construction costs, reduce assessments to residents, and reduce future
maintenance costs to the City.
4.4B Page 9
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer was inspected using a motorized camera. The majority of
the system is in good shape with the exception of some of the 12” & 24” RCP
in the rear yard from Edgemont Circle N to Cherokee Drive N. It is
recommended to install a CIPP liner in this pipe. A CIPP liner should extend
the life of the sanitary sewer up to an additional 50 years without having to
dig up and replace the existing pipe.
Watermain
The firm SEH was hired to analyze the condition of the existing watermain.
Test results show significant sections of watermain have lost up to 50% of the
pipe wall thickness. There will be significant areas of watermain replacement
and water service replacement throughout the project. All hydrants in the
project area will also be replaced as part of the project.
Storm Sewer
Most of the existing storm sewer will be replaced because it is not sized to
handle a 10% chance of a 10-year storm event. The system will also be
expanded to address localized drainage issues as identified by residents at
neighborhood meetings.
The storm sewer system will also have 4” draintile added at low points to
drain the subgrade and some limited 6” draintile to accommodate some sump
pumps. The 6” draintile will be located at strategic areas to address issues
with sump pumps discharging when temperatures are low, causing icy
conditions on the road.
Sidewalks
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows a 6-foot wide, boulevard-style concrete
sidewalk on Edgemont Blvd from 63rd Ave N to Cherokee Dr N (see Figure 2).
This potential sidewalk would connect sidewalks on 63rd Ave N and Boone
Ave N and provide safe pedestrian movement to Bass Creek Park. It is staff’s
recommendation to install this sidewalk in accordance with the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
4.4B Page 10
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
Figure 2. Graphic from 2030 Comprehensive Plan
RIGHT-OF-WAY
& EASEMENTS:
PROJECT COSTS:
The right-of-way is 60 feet wide for all streets located within the project limits.
All proposed improvements stay within the right-of-way and no additional
easement requirements are anticipated.
The total estimated project cost is $7,457,000 (Table 1). The total cost
includes direct costs for engineering, clerical, and construction finance costs
from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. The estimated
roadway construction cost is $4,928,000 and the sidewalk improvements
amount to $82,000. These costs will be funded with special assessments
and City funds (50/50 split). Utility improvements and repairs amount to
$2,447,000 and will be funded through their respective utility fund.
Item
Roadway:
Roadway Construction Cost:
30% Engineering, Construction
Admin, and Contingency
Roadway Total:
Utilities:
Storm Sewer
Watermain
Sanitary Sewer
30% Engineering, Construction
Admin, and Contingency
Utility Total:
Sidewalk:
Sidewalk Total:
Total Project:
Amount
Total Cost
$ 3,791,000
$ 1,137,000
$ 4,928,000
$ 330,000
$ 1,074,000
$ 478,000
$ 565,000
$ 2,447,000
$ 82,000
$ 82,000
$ 7,457,000
4.4B Page 11
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
Table 1. Estimated Project Costs
ASSESSMENTS:
Based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy, there are 219.5 residential
equivalent units (REU) in the 2016 Street Reconstruction Project area.
Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties, as
shown in Appendix D and Figure 3. The recommended estimated
assessment per REU is $11,350 (Table 2).
This is slightly higher than what was shown to the neighborhood residents
because of a miscalculation regarding twin homes. Typically twin homes
have two PID numbers which would have resulted in two full assessments
per twin home. When staff did the assessment roll it was discovered the twin
homes only had a singular PID number. This resulted in three less REU’s
than what was calculated for the September 15, 2015 neighborhood meeting.
Having three less REU’s resulted in the cost per property to increase by
approximately $150 per home.
Staffs recommends reconstructing the roads to 30’ (back to back) and install
the sidewalk in accordance to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. These
improvements would result in a special assessment of $11,160 per REU.
Road Width
Reconstruct the road
to 32’ wide (back of
curb to back of curb)
Reconstruct the road
to 30’ wide (back of
curb to back of curb)
Full Assessment
Without Sidewalk
Full assessment
Including Sidewalk
$11,350
$11,540
$10,970
$11,160
Table 2. Estimated Full Share Special Assessments
The formulas for calculating REUs for properties are described below:
209 Properties with a full assessment (green) = (209)*(1) = 209 REU’s
15 Corner properties that get a 50% assessment (yellow) = (15)*(0.50) = 7.5
REU’s
Total REU’s = 209 + 7.5 = 216.5 REU’s
4.4B Page 12
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
Figure 3. Preliminary Assessment Map
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
The following schedule is feasible from an Engineering standpoint:
City Council Accepts Feasibility Report and Orders
Plans and Specifications to be Created
Neighborhood Informational Meeting
City Council Approves Plans and Specifications
and Orders Plans to be Bid
Bid Opening
Public Hearing and Award Project
Begin Construction
September 28, 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
Spring 2016
Complete Construction
Fall 2016
Final Assessment Hearing
Fall 2017
4.4B Page 13
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
FEASIBILITY:
Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and
necessary to improve the public infrastructure in the 2016 Street
Reconstruction Project Area.
APPENDIX:
A. Preliminary Assessment Roll
B. 2008 City Comprehensive Plan Update – Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities
C. Proposed Storm Water, Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, and Sidewalk
Improvements
4.4B Page 14
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
APPENDIX A – PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
Prelilminary Assessment Roll
CIP 400316
RATE $11,350.00/Lot Unit for Bituminous Street & Concrete Curb
& Gutter
Total Est.
PID#
Owner
Lot Units
Assessment
31-119-21-31-0010
D.W. Hudek & P.J. Hudek
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-31-0011
Jeanne L. Stanislawski
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-31-0012
Gautham N./Jennifer L. Devara
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-31-0013
David C. & Kim M. Schulte
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-31-0014
Stephen R. Shaver & Cassi Gelakoski
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0004
Brian T. & Ester N. Hammer
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0005
Steven J. & Patty Klumpner
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0006
Schissel Rev Lvg Trst/Arrowwanna Schissel
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0007
Linda Kammerer
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0008
William W. Rathbun
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0011
Daniel B. Carlson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0012
Cory McLouden
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0013
Stuart B. & Lyla J. Peterson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0014
Carolyn J. Dindorf
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0015
Robert R. Pierson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0016
Edgemont House LLC
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0017
Kevin R. Hansen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0023
T. R. Frigaard
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0024
Sara M. & Brian J. S. Mork
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-32-0025
Mark G. & Denise K. Brecheisen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0026
Richard R. & Kathleen Theisen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0028
April Gulley
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0029
T.J. Almen & S.R. Almen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0030
Bernie M. & Donna M. Mithun
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0031
Faith in Action Ministries
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0032
H.S. & K.K. Salaymeh
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0033
Bunnarath H. & Samphors Yim
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0034
Robert A. Blood
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0035
Robert M. Perlinger
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0036
Dan R. & Carny M. Berg
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0037
J. Conser & K. Holdbakk
1
$11,350.00
4.4B Page 15
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
31-119-21-32-0038
Papa Faal & Sainabou Faal
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0039
Paul C. & Kelltie Goodwin
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-32-0040
E. Thorpe & J. Agbaje
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0041
The Salvation Army
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0042
Michael R. Henry/Ryan L. Henry
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0043
C.T. Driscoll/Erin M. Driscoll
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0044
Efstratios Atsidakos Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0045
Kelley D. & Nancy J. Monroe
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0046
A.S. Steffl & J.S. Steffl
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0047
Gary A. Bauer Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0048
James R. & Deborah B. Jester
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0049
Brian E. & Julie R. Wallace
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0050
Henry J. Hagel
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0051
Jacob M. & Paula F. Leider
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0052
Michael Anderson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0053
Lafadria L. Bell
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0054
John P. & Elizabeth M. Osborne
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0055
B. & N. Dunn
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0056
T.R. & D.M. Jarvi
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0057
Robert P. Lahr Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0058
T.H. Gooden & M.M. Cohen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0059
Jeremy Lechner
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0060
Daniel T. Farley Trustee
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0061
Adam R. Silverstein
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0062
Matthew D. Baltus
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-32-0063
Mercy K. Miantona
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-32-0064
Christopher Stromquist
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0065
Todd W. & Kiesha M. Gilbert
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-32-0066
D. & J. Thune
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0004
Michael Jubert
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-33-0005
David & Margaret Johannsen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0006
James S. Gross
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0007
C.J. & F.A. Vogt
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0008
Cynthia A. Befort Trustee
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0009
Stobbs Klang Properties LLC
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0010
Gunnhild Solem Accola
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0011
W.A. & S.R. Aubin
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0012
William E. Tyson Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0013
Anthony N. Le & Tam M. Vo
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0014
N.F. Rudd & M.A. Rudd
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0015
Daniel J. Haerle
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0016
Mary & Ernie Solheim
1
$11,350.00
4.4B Page 16
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
31-119-21-33-0017
Roger A. Grossinger
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0018
William J. & Velma J. Carter
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0019
Michelle L. Schneider
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0020
J.R. & P.L. Amstrup
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0021
E.J. & R.M. Dubay
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0022
E.L. Lotts, Jr. & J.J. Lotts
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0023
Randall B. Berglin
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0024
C. & P. Edstrom
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0025
Tam M. & Quoc G. Nguyen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0026
Catherine M. Byrnes & Eric T. Bolton
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0027
Robert D. & Cynthia A. Olson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0028
Anton S. Carlson, Jr.
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0029
John E. & Linda K. Mikelson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0030
Coc Huu Nguyen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0031
D.P. & S.A. Rech
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-33-0032
Michael E. Oihus
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-33-0033
B.M. & M.S. Minshall
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0034
David B. McLellan Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0035
Vladimir Gruback & Lisa Okray
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0036
Joy D. & G. Steven Heil
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0037
John & Sheryl De Otis
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0038
A.J. & C.S. Stegman
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0039
Richard & Mary Burrington
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0040
R. Susskind & C.E. Woehrer
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0041
Jerome & Cynthia Wall
1
$11,350.00
31-119-31-33-0042
Douglas Barrett & Heather Sanders
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0043
Stephen Mikolai Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0044
Kristopher Fitzhenry
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0045
M. Bevins & L. Nordquist
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0046
M.T. Beaty/T.L. Schafer-Beaty
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0047
Steven P. & Mary E. Berger
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0048
Myron T. Anderson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0049
Scott Gerald Gjerstad
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0050
Duane J. Schlechter Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0051
James W. Abbas Jr. Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0052
Rebecca Littlejohn & James Schiltz
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0053
Patrick Martin & Kristin Kahler
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0054
Douglas & Nancy Schendel
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0055
Sean & Karen O'Malley
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0056
Youa Chang
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0057
R. M. Watkins
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0058
Russell L. & Carrie L. Davis
1
$11,350.00
4.4B Page 17
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
31-119-21-33-0059
Dean R. Krause Disclaim Tr Et/Linda M Krause
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0060
T. Hoang & N.P. Hoang Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0061
J.W. & M.K.Dwyer
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0062
M.F. & T.J. Nichols
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0063
Priority One Management Inc.
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0064
Charles & Elizabeth Waldmyer
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0065
B. Asta & A. Abraha
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0066
Senait Negussie/Senait Mulusew Gatahun
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0067
J.A. & C.C. Franke
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-33-0069
Corey & Jessica Olderness
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0070
W.W. & B.J. Brown
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0071
R.R. Rippberger Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0072
L.D. Klovstad & B. Vandenberg
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0073
Todd & Megan Schultz
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0074
Roble Living Trust/S.Roble&K. Roble Trustees
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-33-0075
Bruce & Kara Holt
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-33-0076
James & Shari Gieseke
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0010
Richard & Lucinda Schatz
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-34-0011
Thomas J. Urbanski Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0012
N&G Financial LLC
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0013
Andrew Moore/Sydnie Stark
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0014
David & Teresita Jung
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0015
Valerie Poston
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0016
Norman K. Johnson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0017
Craig Glazier
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0018
Maykoly Gasao
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0019
Eugenia Oswiecimka
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0020
R. & P. Biggs
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0021
Steven M. Olson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0022
Patricia F. Rose
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0023
Najla Sakhi
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0024
Tara M. & Roger Munn
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-34-0025
David & Lisa Mikelson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0026
Real Assets LLC/Hanad Farah & Roda Guled
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0027
Regina Magee & Terrence Johnson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0028
Robert & Coleen Brenton
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0029
Joan A. Nathan
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0030
Michael S. McCourtney Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0031
Operation Homefront Inc.
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0032
Luisa Aidee Jones
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0037
B. & P. Mickelson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0038
Carrie A. Horstmann
1
$11,350.00
4.4B Page 18
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
31-119-21-34-0039
P.V. Tobako/Lisa Dooley-Tobako
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0040
S. Timofeyev & M. Aksteter
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0041
Denise R. Walen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0042
Joe L. & MaryAnn E. Torres
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0043
Robert & Sharon Jarosz
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0044
Joshua Ziesmer/Korin Jonland
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0045
Chong Vang
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0046
Edin & Viola Weedor
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0047
Mee Thor
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-34-0048
Scott & Renee McNeal
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-34-0049
Eduardo Moreno & Marie Moran
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0050
David M. Herrington Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0051
Kevin Halliburton & Latina Hobbs
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0052
T.Z. Misgina & T.T. Yacob
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0053
Daivd & Patricia Toner
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0054
Daivd & Anna Gross
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0055
Bee Yang & Vicki Hurshuajer
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0056
Mgizi Mbelwa
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0057
Linda Duenwald
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0058
Sundaygai & Grace Scott
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0059
Daniel & Julie Aaker
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0060
Willie & Sandra Graham
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0061
R. & S. Luskey
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0062
Patrick & Margaret Bailey
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0063
Dennis J. Oestreich
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0064
Jason Lee
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0065
Aaron & Rebecca Lahr
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0066
Shane & Shariene Carter
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0067
B.E. & K.J. Hanson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0068
Steven & Roberta McLaird
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0069
John R. Strand
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0070
O. & C. Johnson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0071
R.H. Lai & K.C. Lai Trustees
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0072
Dale & Jane Heezen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0073
Marian B. Carlough
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0074
Pho V. Nguyen & Duoc T. Le
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0075
Lorvin G. Moeller
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0076
Jennifer Wasdahl
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0077
Shawn & Vicki Welle
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0078
Patrick J. Brinkman
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0079
Nancy L. McNally Trust
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0080
L. & B. Jacobson
1
$11,350.00
4.4B Page 19
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
31-119-21-34-0081
Anh Do
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0082
Brian & Mathea Spranger
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0083
Thao Pham & Jenny Pham
0.5
$5,675.00
31-119-21-34-0084
Ron Brogaard
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0085
James L. Moore Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0086
Justin & Amanda Wevers
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0087
Mark & Lynette Running
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0088
Rodney L. Cooperman/CHAR-COOP LLP
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0089
Glen G. Miner, Jr. Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0090
Edward & Marshalleen Patten
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0091
Michael Eicher
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0092
Terry & Julie Johnson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0093
Jay S. Leamons
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0094
R.E. & D.K. Post
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0095
John & Deborah Oster
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0096
Gordon & Carolyn Peterson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0097
William & Judith McAlpin
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0098
Anita & Jon Green
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0099
Cody L. Schons
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0100
Ruth H. Thompson
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0101
James & Dawn Stroschein
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0102
L.N. Le & B. Nguyen
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0117
Derek Lougheed Et Al
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0118
Pravin M. & Vasanti Bhakta
1
$11,350.00
31-119-21-34-0119
Michael H. Thelen
0.5
$5,675.00
TOTAL
216.5
$2,457,275.00
4.4B Page 20
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
APPENDIX B – 2008 CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE – SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE
FACILITIES
4.4B Page 21
Feasibility Study
September 28, 2015
APPENDIX C - PROPOSED STORM WATER, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, AND SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS
Agenda Item:
4.5
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
Attachments:
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Business and Rental Licensing
Division
Lisa Chmelar
N/A
Program Assistant II
Keith Jullie
N/A
Presented By:
Property Services Director
Approve a Tobacco Sales License for Modou Dibba Doing Business As Broadway Food
Market Inc Located at 8461 West Broadway
Prepared By:
MOTION _________________, SECOND _________________, TO APPROVE A TOBACCO SALES LICENSE FOR
MODOU DIBBA DOING BUSINESS AS BROADWAY FOOD MARKET INC LOCATED AT 8461 WEST BROADWAY,
CONTINGENT ON BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BEING ISSUED AND FINAL
INSPECTIONS COMPLETED AND APPROVED.
Overview:
This is a new Tobacco Sales license for Modou Dibba doing business as Broadway Food Market Inc. located at
8461 West Broadway.
The Police Department has completed their investigation of the owner. The Fire Department last inspected
the property on May 6, 2015. The Community Development Department approved the application on
September 1, 2015. The Police, Fire and Community Development Departments find no reason that would
preclude the issuance of the Tobacco Sales license. Their reports are on file in the Licensing Division and are
available upon request.
Attachments: N/A
Agenda Item:
4.6
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Attachments:
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Prepared By:
Lisa Chmelar, Program Assistant II
Keith Jullie, Property Services
Director
3
Presented By:
Lt. Eric Nelson, Police Dept.
Approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the Brooklyn Park Rotary Foundation
for their Beer Fest to be held October 3, 2015, at 6716 85th Avenue North
MOTION ___________, SECOND ____________, TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
THE BROOKLYN PARK ROTARY FOUNDATION FOR THEIR BEER FEST TO BE HELD OCTOBER 3, 2015, AT 6716
85TH AVENUE NORTH.
Overview:
This is the first year for the Brooklyn Park Rotary Foundation’s Beer Fest to be held on October 3, 2015, at
6716 85th Avenue North (Tessman Farm) from 2 to 5 p.m. This event will have a live polka band, brats, and
expects to have several hundred attendees that will pay $40.00 for unlimited samples of craft beer and ciders
served in 5 oz. souvenir glasses. The Police Department, Fire Department and Community Development
Department have been working with the Brooklyn Park Rotatory to ensure it has meet all the concerns
regarding the issuance of the Special Event permit for this event.
The Police Department has completed their background investigation of the applicant for a Temporary OnSale Liquor License. The Police Department and the Community Development Department find no reason that
would preclude the issuance of this Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license. Their reports are on file in
the Business and Rental Licensing Division and are available upon request.
The license must be approved by the State of Minnesota, Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division once
the City of Brooklyn Park has approved the license.
Attachments:
4.6A ROTARY BEER FEST INFORMATIONAL FLYER
4.6B ROTARY BEER FEST LETTER TO NEIGHBORHOOD
4.6C EVENT SITE PLAN
4.6A ROTARY BEER FEST INFORMATIONAL FLYER
PAGE Page 2
4.6B ROTARY BEER FEST LETTER TO NEIGHBORHOOD
PAGE 3
4.6C EVENT SITE PLAN
PAGE 4
Volunteer
TENT
Orange fence
Restrooms
Food
Entrance
Fire lane
Entrance
Parking
Agenda Item:
4.7
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
X
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
Prepared By:
September 28, 2015
Jon Watson, Public Utilities
Superintendent
Ordinance:
N/A
Attachments:
2
Presented By:
Jon Watson
Authorize Entering into an Agreement with Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. for Engineering
Services for HVAC Modifications Phase II at the Water Treatment Plant
Item:
MOTION _______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION
#2015-_____ TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH KARGES-FAULCONBRIDGE, INC. FOR
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR HVAC MODIFICATIONS PHASE II AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
Overview:
The request is for authorization to enter into an agreement with Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. (KFI) to produce
plans and specifications and conduct the engineering work to solve a specific ventilation problem at the City’s
water treatment facility.
A major renovation and expansion was completed at the water treatment plant in 2011, and there were
numerous improvements on the process equipment and building. The water filtering areas were modified
with wall panels to keep the ventilation system separate from the occupied work areas. This was done due to
the concern of radon gas generated during the filtering process. During filtering operations, the room
atmosphere is exhausted outside and fresh air is brought into the room. This process works well during most
of the year except during the periods of humid weather. During the hot humid weather, the exchanged air
condenses in the filter rooms and causes very humid conditions. A study and project was conducted in 2014 –
2015, and the installed equipment has proved to be working well to date. The areas that house the 4 large
pretreatment basins are in need of the dehumidification as well, so funds have been budgeted in 2016 to
complete this next phase of the project.
KFI has been recommended to continue as the consultant engineer for this next phase. They have submitted a
proposal to complete the plans and specifications in late 2015, so that the project may be out for bid and
awarded in early 2016.
KFI is an experienced mechanical engineering firm that does work for both the public and private sectors. They
specialize in working on industrial mechanical engineering work and problems such as the one described
herein.
4.7 Page 2
Primary issues/alternatives to consider:
•
Should the agreement be approved?
Staff recommends approval of the agreement because it is necessary to fix this problem before other
problems develop due to the humid conditions.
•
The Council has the following alternatives to consider:
1.
Approve the agreement proposal as recommended
2.
Reject the agreement proposal and direct staff to delay the project
3.
Reject the agreement and do nothing
The estimated cost of plans, specifications, and project management is $52,100.00. It is anticipated that
approximately 80% of this fee will be earned in 2015; the balance being for project management will be
conducted in 2016. These engineering costs can be accommodated in the 2015 Water Supply and Treatment
Fund budget.
Attachments:
4.7A
4.7B
RESOLUTION
PROPOSAL LETTER
4.7A RESOLUTION
Page 3
RESOLUTION #2015RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH KARGES-FAULCONBRIDGE, INC.
FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR HVAC MODIFICATIONS PHASE II AT THE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WHEREAS, Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. Engineers (KFI) was retained in 2014 to analyze the situation and
propose the best solution of the problem; and
WHEREAS, phase 1 of the project was successfully completed in 2015; and
WHEREAS, phase 2 of the project is budgeted for 2016; and
WHEREAS, KFI has submitted a proposal to produce the engineering documents; and
WHEREAS, the recommended proposal can be accommodated in the 2015 and 2016 Water Supply and
Treatment Fund Budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to authorize
entering into an agreement with Karges-Faulconbridge Inc. for engineering services for HVAC modifications
phase II at the water treatment plant in the amount of $52,100.00
4.7B PROPOSAL LETTER
Page 4
September 22, 2015
Mr. Jon Watson
Public Utilities Superintendent
8300 Noble Avenue
Brooklyn Park, MN 55441
Via Email To: jon.watson@brooklynpark.org
Re:
Proposal for Engineering Services
City of Brooklyn Park Water Treatment Facilities HVAC System Upgrades Phase Two
KFI Proposal #P15-0802
Dear Mr. Watson:
Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. (KFI) is pleased to provide this proposal for engineering services on the
above referenced project. This proposal outlines our anticipated scope of work and estimated added
project costs.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING:
Project is to provide upgrades to the HVAC systems serving rooms 231 & 235 to reduce the relative
humidity of the spaces.
SCOPE OF WORK
KFI will provide the following scope of work:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Review options to dehumidify the processing room RM 231 & 235.
Calculate sizing of equipment and systems to serve the room.
Provide opinion of probable cost for new desiccant system.
Generate Mechanical, Electrical and Structural drawings to provide desiccant
dehumidification systems for the existing water processing room.
5. Provide project specifications for the new Mechanical, Electrical and Structural systems.
6. Assist the City of Brooklyn Park to facilitate the bidding of the project.
7. Attend on site bid walk meeting.
8. Prepare bid tab and recommendations on recommended contractor to award project to.
9. Attend contractor kick off meeting upon of award of bids.
10. Review equipment submittals associated with the new desiccant systems.
11. Provide three site visits during construction to review progress of system installation.
12. Provide final punch list and attend startup of new desiccant units.
Deliverables:
1. Opinion of Probable Costs.
2. Mechanical, Electrical and Structural drawings and specifications.
3. Bid tabulation.
4. Equipment submittal review.
5. Final Punch List.
4.7B Page 5
Brooklyn Park Water Treatment HVAC System Upgrade
PROJECT COSTS
KFI will perform the above scope of services for a fixed fee of $52,100.00. Note: reimbursable
expenses for travel and production costs have been included in the above fee.
Additional travel required to Brooklyn Park, MN, if requested, will be billed at our hourly rates plus
travel costs.
Payment terms: progress billings monthly, net 30 days. If you find this proposal acceptable, please
sign this letter and return a copy to our office. We can begin work after receipt of written notice to
proceed.
Thank you for the opportunity to work with the City of Brooklyn Park. Please contact me at (651) 2546921, with any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Accepted by:
Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.
City of Brooklyn Park, MN
William F. Davis, P.E.
Project Manager
______________________________________
Jay Stroebel
Date
City Manager
City of Brooklyn Park, MN
______________________________________
Jeffrey Joneal Lunde
Date
Mayor
2
Scope and Fee
Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc.  KFI – P15-0802
Agenda Item:
4.8
Meeting Date:
Agenda Section:
Consent
Originating
Department:
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Attachments:
Item:
September 28, 2015
Community Development –
Business and Rental Licensing
Division
Prepared By:
Noelle Beigle, Program Assistant II
Keith Jullie, Property Services
N/A
Presented By:
Director
Approve a Tobacco Sales License for Adam Waller & Anthony Foslien Doing Business as
The E-Cig Lounge Located at 9330 Zane Ave N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
MOTION _______________, SECOND _______________, TO APPROVE A TOBACCO SALES LICENSE FOR ADAM
WALLER AND ANTHONY FOSLIEN DOING BUSINESS AS THE E-CIG LOUNGE LOCATED AT 9330 ZANE AVENUE N
IN BROOKLYN PARK.
Overview:
This is a new Tobacco Sales license for Adam Waller & Anthony Foslien doing business as The E-Cig Lounge
Located at 9330 Zane Avenue N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55443.
The Police Department has completed their investigation of the owners. The Fire Department last inspected
the property in January 2015. The Police and Community Development Departments find no reason that
would preclude the issuance of the Tobacco Sales license. Their reports are on file in the Licensing Division and
are available upon request.
Attachments: N/A
Agenda Item:
4.9
Agenda Section:
Consent
Resolution:
X
Ordinance:
N/A
Attachments:
3
Presented By:
Jesse Struve, P.E., City Engineer
Approve Agreement for Utility Easement and Grade Separated Crossing with Three
Rivers Park District
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Operations and Maintenance –
Engineering Services Division
Prepared By:
Jesse Struve, P.E., City Engineer
#2015-______ APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR UTILITY EASEMENT AND GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING WITH
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT.
Overview:
The owner of the property in the project area, Brooklyn Holdings LP, has submitted a petition for public
utilities to serve their property. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning (First Reading) for “North
Park Business Center” was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 11, 2015, and City
Council on February 23, 2015. On September 14, 2015, the City Council awarded the contract to extend
sanitary sewer to the Northpark Development.
The project will construct sanitary sewer from its current location on the north side of 101st Avenue North
then north across the City and Three Rivers Park District properties to serve the future development. A
permanent and temporary utility easement is required from Three Rivers to do the work.
There is also a desire by Three Rivers Park District to complete a grade separated crossing at Winnetka
Avenue. The City will also need a permanent right of way for the future Xylon Avenue. Currently the alignment
of Xylon Avenue has not been determined. Once the City finalizes this alignment, the City will go back to Three
Rivers to finalize the needed right of way. Once the right of way is finalized, the City will have 10 years to
design and install a grade separated crossing at Winnetka Avenue. Staff recommends approving the
agreement.
Attachments:
4.9A RESOLUTION
4.9B AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING
4.9C LOCATION MAP
4.9A RESOLUTION
Page 2
RESOLUTION #2015RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR UTILITY EASEMENT AND
GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING WITH THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park was in need of both permanent and temporary easements for the
construction of the sanitary sewer crossing for the North Park Development; and
WHEREAS, Three Rivers Park District was willing to enter into an agreement to convey those easements
to the City of Brooklyn Park in anticipation of receiving a future grade separated crossing at Winnetka Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park.
1.
That it hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the agreement accepting
the permanent and temporary sanitary sewer easements.
4.9B AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING
Page 3
AGREEMENT FOR EASEMENT AND GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING
This agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ___ day of __________ 2015, by and
between the City of Brooklyn Park (“City”), a Minnesota municipal corporation, and Three Rivers Park
District (“Three Rivers”), a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
Whereas, Three Rivers owns certain lands in City, depicted in Exhibit “A”, which are held for the
preservation, protection, development and betterment of regional recreational open space for public
uses. Those lands are subject to a restrictive covenant agreement with the Metropolitan Council and
are currently used as the Rush Creek Regional Trail and,
Whereas, along the same regional trail corridor and within the City, Three Rivers desires a gradeseparate crossing of Winnetka Avenue and,
Whereas, the City desires an easement for utility purposes over Three Rivers land as described in Exhibit
“B” and,
Whereas, the City may also at a later date desire an easement for roadway purposes in the same
general location of the requested utility easement as shown on Exhibit “A”, and
Whereas, the parties desire to enter into this Agreement to establish terms and conditions to convey
property rights for the City desired easements and to establish terms and conditions for the design and
construction of the Three Rivers’ desired grade-separated crossing of Winnetka Avenue.
Now therefore, the parties agree as follows:
1. Project Definitions
A. Utility Project – This project includes the design and construction of a new sanitary sewer
across Three Rivers land located between TH 169 and Winnetka Avenue. The project
requires a permanent 80’ easement and a temporary 40’ easement on Three Rivers land.
B. Roadway Project – This project includes the design and construction of a new roadway
across Three Rivers land located between TH 169 and Winnetka Avenue and in the same
general location as the utility project. The project includes the design and construction of a
safe trail/road crossing along the Rush Creek Regional Trail. The project will require a new
easement on Three Rivers land.
C. Winnetka Grade-Separated Crossing Project – This project is the design and construction of
a grade-separated trail crossing of Winnetka Avenue. The project also includes the design
and implementation of a detour/safe crossing of Winnetka during construction of the gradeseparated crossing.
2. Obligations of City
A. Utility Project
i. In return for the utility easement provided at no cost to the City, the City agrees to
design, construct, and partially fund a future grade-separated crossing of Winnetka
Avenue in accordance with Paragraphs 2B and 2C of this Agreement should Three Rivers
1
4.9B Page 4
grant the City a new roadway easement. If the City determines a future roadway
easement is not needed across Three River’s property, the City shall not be obligated to
fulfill Paragraphs 2B and 2C of this Agreement.
ii. The City shall be responsible for all planning, design, construction and project
administration for the utility project and shall solely finance the project. No work will be
performed until Three Rivers has granted the easement permitting the work.
iii. The City shall submit all plans and specifications for the utility project to Three Rivers for
review and approval prior to construction. Such approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld.
iv. The City shall obtain all necessary permits and permissions to conduct the work.
v. The City shall identify and sign a reasonable and safe detour for trail users during
construction. If a reasonable and safe detour is not able to be identified, the City shall
be responsible for managing the trail closure during construction.
vi. The City shall restore vegetation in a manner agreed upon by the Park District and the
City.
vii. City shall prepare all required documentation and analysis necessary to seek
Metropolitan Council approval to release the restrictive covenant or consent to the
easement on the land prior to conducting any work.
viii. City shall notify Three Rivers when work is commenced and will permit Three Rivers to
inspect the work at the discretion of Three Rivers.
ix. City shall provide Park District copies of recorded utility easement.
B. Roadway Project –
i. The City shall be responsible for all planning, design, construction and project
administration for the roadway project and shall solely finance the project. No work will
be performed until Three Rivers has granted the easement permitting the work.
ii. The City shall design and construct the road crossing in accordance with standards and
guidelines adopted by the Park District including the Guidance for Three Rivers Park
District Trail Crossing, December 2013. The Park District will have final discretion over
Trail and safe crossing design and the interpretation and execution of engineering best
practices.
iii. The City shall submit all plans and specifications for the roadway project to Three Rivers
for review and approval prior to construction.
iv. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
v. The City shall obtain all necessary permits and permissions to conduct the work.
vi. City shall prepare all required documentation and analysis necessary to seek approval
from the Metropolitan Council to release the restrictive covenant or consent to the
easement on the land prior to conducting any work.
vii. City shall notify Three Rivers when work is commenced and will permit Three Rivers to
viii. City shall provide Park District copies of recorded roadway easement.
C. Winnetka Grade-Separated Crossing Project
i. No later than ten years after receiving the roadway easement, the City shall be
responsible to provide a grade-separated crossing of Winnetka Avenue. As part of this
project, the City shall be responsible for all planning, design, construction, and project
administration.
2
4.9B Page 5
ii. The City shall design and construct the grade-separated crossing in accordance with
standards and guidelines adopted by the Park District including the Guidance for Three
Rivers Park District Trail Crossing, December 2013. The Park District will have final
discretion over Trail and safe crossing design and the interpretation and execution of
engineering best practices.
iii. The City shall be responsible to fund no less than two-thirds of the local match in the
event federal or state funds are available to complete the project or no less than twothirds of the total project cost if federal or state funds are not available to complete the
project.
a. The City shall be responsible to apply for state or federal grants to reduce the
required funding contributions of both the City and Park District.
b. The City may also secure additional funding partners or provide in-kind services to
offset its funding responsibilities.
iv. The City shall submit all plans and specifications for the Winnetka Grade-Separated
Project to Three Rivers for review and approval prior to construction. Such approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
v. The City shall obtain all necessary permits and permissions to conduct the work.
vi. City shall notify Three Rivers when work is commenced and will permit Three Rivers to
3. Obligations of the Park District
A. Utility Project
i. Three Rivers agrees to provide the utility easement, Exhibit “B,” to the City at no cost
provided that the City agrees to all Obligations of the City as outlined in Paragraph 2A of
this Agreement.
ii. Three Rivers will review and provide comments on utility project plans within two weeks
of receipt. Three Rivers will not unreasonable withhold approval of plans.
iii. Three Rivers will coordinate the request for Metropolitan Council approval to release
the restrictive covenant or consent to the easement upon receipt of City’s prepared
documentation and analysis.
B. Roadway Project
i. Three Rivers agrees to provide a roadway easement to the City provided that the City
agrees to all Obligations of the City as outlined in Paragraphs 2B and 2C of this
Agreement. The exact location, size, and terms and conditions of the roadway
easement will be negotiated at which time the City requests the easement.
ii. Three Rivers will work collaboratively with the City to design the new trail/road crossing
in accordance with standards and guidelines adopted by the Park District including the
Guidance for Three Rivers Park District Trail Crossing, December 2013. The Park District
shall have final discretion over Trail and safe crossing design and the interpretation and
execution of engineering best practices.
iii. Three Rivers will review and provide comments on road project plans within two weeks
iv. Three Rivers will coordinate the request for Metropolitan Council approval to release
the restrictive covenant or consent to the easement upon receipt of City’s prepared
documentation and analysis.
3
4.9B Page 6
C. Winnetka Grade-Separated Crossing Project
i.
Three Rivers will work collaboratively with the City to design the grade-separated
crossing in accordance with standards and guidelines adopted by the Park District
including the Guidance for Three Rivers Park District Trail Crossing, December 2013. The
Park District shall have final discretion over Trail and safe crossing design and the
interpretation and execution of engineering best practices.
ii.
Three Rivers shall be responsible to fund up to one-third of the local match in the event
federal or state funds are available to complete the project or up to one-third of the
total project cost if federal or state funds are not available to complete the project.
iii.
Three Rivers will assist and support the City’s efforts to secure grants and funding
partners.
iv.
Three Rivers will review and provide comments on road project plans within two weeks
4. Obligations of Both
A. City and Three Rivers agree to work cooperatively to determine the exact funding, design,
and construction requirements of the future roadway and grade-separated crossing of
Winnetka Avenue which shall remain consistent with the general terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
B. City and Three Rivers agree to work collaboratively to identify a reasonable detour and safe
crossing of Winnetka Avenue during construction of the grade-separated crossing.
5. Additional Provisions
A. Each party will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other form any loss or liability or
claim arising from any act or omission of its officers, employees, agents, contractors or
representatives. Nothing herein shall change the liability limits established by Minn. Stat.
466.04.
B. This agreement will remain in effect until terminated by mutual consent of the parties or the
satisfactory performance of all obligations hereunder.
C. In case of default, either party may suspend performance, cancel this Agreement or take any
other legal action to enforce performance.
D. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business
day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail (registered or
certified) postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
If to the Park District:
Superintendent
Three Rivers Park District
c/c Legal Counsel
3000 Xenium Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441
If to City:
City Manager
c/c Brooklyn Park City Attorney
5200 85th Ave. N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
4
4.9B Page 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Three Rivers and the City have entered into this Agreement as of the
date and year first above written.
Three Rivers Park District, a public corporation and political
subdivision of the State of Minnesota
Dated:
___
By:
Its Chair – Board of Commissioners
Dated:
___
By:
Its Superintendent
And Secretary to the Board
City of Brooklyn Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation
Dated:
___
By:
Its Mayor
Dated:
___
By:
Its City Manager
5
4.9B Page 8
EXHIBIT A
RUSH CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL: AGREEMENT AREA
6
4.9B Page 9
EXHIBIT B
UTILITY EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PID 06-119-21-43-0006
Parcel Description:
That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ lying North of the South 1111.0 feet thereof.
Also the East ¾ of the Southwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼. Also the North 340 feet of the West ¼
of the Southwest ¼ of the Southeast ¼. Also the North 340 feet of the East ¼ of the Southeast
¼ of the Southwest 1/4. All in Section 6, Township 119, Range 21, Hennepin County,
Minnesota. Except Roads.
Easement Description:
An 80 foot permanent easement for utility purposes, over, under, across and through that part
of the above described parcel. The center line is described as follows: Commencing at the
Southwest corner of that part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ lying North of the South
1111.0 feet; thence on an assumed bearing of S89o56’01” E along the North line of the South
1111.00 feet a distance of 40.01 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence N1o12’06” E a distance of 198.2 feet more or less to the North line of the
above described parcel and said line there terminating.
A 40 foot temporary easement for construction purposes lying Easterly of and contiguous with
the above described permanent utility easement. The temporary construction easement will
expire on July 1, 2016.
7
4.9C LOCATION MAP
Page 10
Agenda Item:
6.1
Agenda Section:
Land Use Actions
Resolution:
XX
Ordinance:
FIRST READING
Attachments:
7
Presented By:
Cindy Sherman, Planning Director
Villas of Rush Creek Trail (Ramsay Properties, LLC) – Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment #15-123 for a Community of 59 Detached AssociationMaintained Single Family Homes on Vacant Land Surrounding 3600, 3608, and 3850
101st Avenue North
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Prepared By:
Todd A. Larson, Senior Planner
City Manager’s Proposed Actions:
#2015-_____ APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGUIDING 15.4 ACRES FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NORTHEAST OF 101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD
PARKWAY.
MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT ON FIRST
READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 152 OF CITY CODE TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM DETACHED
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R2B) TO DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (R4B/PD) NORTHEAST OF 101ST AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY.
#2015-_____ APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT #15-123 OF “VILLAS OF RUSH CREEK TRAIL” SUBDIVIDING 15.9
ACRES INTO 61 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS NORTHEAST OF 101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY.
Note: The second reading of the rezoning ordinance and the final plat resolution will be brought to the City
Council after review by the Metropolitan Council.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
At its meeting on September 9, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the
proposal with conditions that are listed in the attached resolutions.
Overview:
Ramsay Properties LLC is proposing a 59-lot detached townhome neighborhood in the northeastern part of
the community. Each home will be detached and the exteriors will be maintained by an association. The
association will also maintain the landscaping, the private roadways, and the driveways and walkways of the
individual homes. Two existing homes will remain creating a total of 61 lots.
6.1 Page 2
1. Approve the proposal as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2. Approve the proposal with modifications.
3. Deny the proposal based on certain findings.
Park dedication will be collected on 59 lots created for new construction.
Attachments:
6.1A
6.1B
6.1C
6.1D
6.1E
6.1F
6.1G
RESOLUTION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE – REZONING
RESOLUTION – PRELIMINARY PLAT
LOCATION MAP
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
PLANS
i:\planning\planning cases\2015\15-123 (villas of rush creek trail)\15-123 cc 2015-09-28.docx
6.1A RESOLUTION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Page 3
RESOLUTION #2015RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REGUIDING 15.4 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
NORTHEAST OF 101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY
Planning Commission File #15-123
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Park has an adopted Comprehensive Plan that identifies different land use
categories in the community; and
WHEREAS, the subject properties are adjacent to a medium density townhome development and the
Three Rivers Park District’s Rush Creek Regional Trail Corridor; and
WHEREAS, designating the subject property to Medium Density Residential is consistent with the
purpose and intent of the adopted Comprehensive Plan that promotes housing choices in this part of the
community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park, The
Comprehensive Land Use Plan is hereby amended changing the property designation from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential subject to review by the Metropolitan Council for the property
generally described as:
The area north of 101st Avenue, west of Natureview Vista, south of the Rush Creek Regional Trail
Corridor, and east of Hidden Trail Estates.
6.1B ORDINANCE – REZONING
Page 4
ORDINANCE #2015ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 152 OF CITY CODE TO REZONE PROPERTY
FROM DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R2B)
TO DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (R4B/PD)
NORTHEAST OF 101ST AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY
The City Of Brooklyn Park Does Ordain:
Section 1.
Section 152 of the Zoning code is amended to rezone the following properties from Detached Single-Family
Residential District (R2B) to Detached Single-Family Residential District with Planned Development Overlay
(R4B/PD):
All lots and outlots included in the Plat of Villas of Rush Creek Trail, except Lot 1, Block 10,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
The Planned Development Overlay allows for units to be as close as 10 feet together. To support the reduced
setbacks, the developer shall provide the following:
1. The wainscot of stone must wrap around the entirety of the front elevations.
2. A 6-foot sidewalk is required along the north side of 101st Avenue.
The zoning map of the City on file with the City Clerk and referred to in Section 152 of the City Code is hereby
amended in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance.
6.1C RESOLUTION – PRELIMINARY PLAT
Page 5
RESOLUTION #2015RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
“VILLAS OF RUSH CREEK TRAIL”
SUBDIVIDING 15.9 ACRES INTO 61 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS
NORTHEAST OF 101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY
Planning Commission File #15-123
WHEREAS, the plat of “Villas of Rush Creek Trail” has been submitted in the manner required for
platting of land under the Brooklyn Park Codes and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all
proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and codes of the City of Brooklyn Park, Chapters 151 and
152; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposal at its meeting on
September 9, 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park, Preliminary Plat
Request #15-123 “Villas of Rush Creek Trail” shall be approved subject to the following conditions:
1.00 DRAWINGS
1.01
Site plan/preliminary plat on file in the City Clerk’s office undated; and Utility and Grading plans on file
in the City Clerk’s office dated 08-27-2015 are approved for 61 single-family lots upon compliance with
the requirements in this resolution.
1.02
Home plans must conform to those dated 02-23-2015.
2.00 BONDS, ESCROWS AND DIRECT PAYMENTS
2.01
A Development Contract and bonding shall be required in the amount of $1,274,300 as a development
bond or letter of credit, a $66,900 cash bond, and a $69,800 developer’s escrow as required by Chapter
152. The developer's escrow must be posted with the City Treasurer to cover engineering, legal and
administrative costs incurred by the City. If this account becomes deficient it shall be the developer's
responsibility to deposit additional funds. This must be done before final bonding obligations are
complete. Bonding may be recalculated based on a phasing plan.
2.02
Payment of any special assessments on the property.
6.1C Page 6
2.03
Payment of a park dedication fee based on 59 lots at the rate in effect at the time of final plat
approval. No payment is required on lots containing the existing homes until they are subdivided.
3.00 REQUIRED DOCUMENTS
3.01
Approval of Title by the City Attorney.
3.02
All utility construction, drainage, grading and development plans must be approved by the City
Engineer prior to receiving a building permit.
3.03
A comprehensive search shall be performed to identify any existing wells on the property. A licensed
well driller shall properly abandon any unused wells in the plat. Such abandonment shall be reviewed
and approved by the Minnesota Department of Health.
3.04
A final plat showing the correct square footage for each lot area must be submitted prior to recording
of the final plat.
3.05
A public trail easement of 20 feet in width covering the trail along the eastern edge of the site.
3.06
Homeowners Association documents must be reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. These documents
must contain the following items:
A. The existing home in Lot 1, Block 3, will be using the private roadway for access. This lot must be
included in the association for rights to use the roadway and to contribute toward the roadway’s
maintenance.
B. Sanitary sewer and water services between the mains and the homes are considered private. The
association documents must state the maintenance responsibility as either the homeowner’s or the
association’s responsibility.
C. An additional 5 units by subdividing Lot 1, Block 3, and an additional 10 units on the adjacent
property to the west must be identified as potential future units in the association.
4.00 GENERAL CONDITIONS
4.01
This preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the Metropolitan Council’s approval of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
4.02
It shall be the developer's responsibility to keep active and up to date the developer's contract and
financial surety (Letter of Credit, bonds, etc.). These documents must remain active until the developer
has been released from any further obligation by City Council motion received in writing from the
Engineering Department.
4.03
Before final bonding obligations are released, a certificate signed by a registered engineer must be
provided. This certificate will state that all final lot and building grades are in conformance to drainage
development plan(s) approved by the City Engineer.
6.1C Page 7
4.04
All conditions of the City Attorney’s office shall also apply. A Title Review must be conducted by the
City Attorney’s office using documents provided by the developer before final plat.
4.05
No burying of construction debris shall be permitted on the site.
4.06
Dust control measures must be in place to prevent for dust and erosion including, but not limited to,
daily watering, silt fences, and seeding. The City Engineer may impose measures to reduce dust.
4.07
Adequate dumpsters must be on site during construction of streets, utilities, and homes. When full,
they must be emptied immediately or replaced with an empty dumpster.
4.08
Metal roll-off dumpster containers for construction debris shall be present at each building site within
the front yard prior to framing inspections being conducted. Dumpsters shall be monitored for
overflow and emptied and completely covered with a secured tarp or cover at the end of each work
day.
4.09
Adequate portable toilets must be on-site at all times during construction of utilities, roadways, and
homes. At no time shall any home under construction be more than 250 feet away from any portable
toilet. Toilets must be regularly emptied.
4.10
During construction, streets must be passable, at all times, free of debris, materials, soils, snow, and
other obstructions.
4.11
Orange snow fence must be installed around all areas indicated on the plans as “trees to be saved.”
Trees shown on the landscaping plans as “Save Trees” shall be saved.
4.12
Plantings on power line easements may need to be a species/types that will mature at a height that
will not interfere with the overhead power lines or interfere with their maintenance (Xcel Energy will
determine appropriate types). Xcel Energy must approve the landscaping plan due to the transmission
lines along the north and south sides of the development.
4.13
Model homes must comply with all landscaping requirements.
4.14
The exterior stone must be wrap around the entire front side of the house including the garage return
and the entryway.
4.15
The two existing outbuildings on the 3608 101st Avenue property must be removed.
4.16
The driveway to the existing home at 3600 101st Avenue must be paved with road construction.
4.17
The overhead utilities for the existing home at 3600 101st Avenue must be buried and the existing
overhead lines and poles must be removed.
4.18
The west end of Chestnut Circle must be finished off with concrete curb and gutter.
4.19
Signs indicating private roadways shall be placed at each entrance to the development.
6.1C Page 8
4.20
No building permits will be issued until such time as adequate public utilities, including street lights,
and streets have been installed and determined to be available to use. The City will require that the
utilities, lighting, and street system have been designed, bid, constructed and considered operational
prior to issuance of any building permits in the development. Also, the City must have all the necessary
right-of-way and/or easements needed for the property to be serviced.
If the petitioner needs additional time to satisfy the requirements listed in this Preliminary Plat in order to get
it released for recording, then a one-year time extension must be requested. Time extension requests are
subject to the conditions found in Subdivision Code (Section 151). The failure on the part of the petitioner to
submit a final plat per Section 151 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary
approval to be null and void.
6.1D LOCATION MAP Page 9
Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment #15-123
"Villas of Rush Creek Trail" Ramsay Properties LLC
This is a public hearing notice
map. Properties receiving
notices are within the red
dashed line.
103rd Tr N
Notification distance = 500 feet
Spring 2012 Air Photo.
Rush Creek Regional Trail Corridor
Fallgold Pkwy N
Site Location
Chestnut Ln N
Chestnut Cir N
Elm Ave N
101st Ave N
Properties Notified
«
100
Feet
^
_
Map Date August 18, 2015
6.1E PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION
Page 10
Land Use Plan
Low Density Residential (up to 3 units per acre)
Current Zoning
Detached Single-Family Residential District (R2B)
Surrounding Zoning
East – Townhouse District (R4A)
Natureview Vista
South – Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Willows of Aspen
West – Detached Single-Family Residential District (R2B)
Hidden Trail Estates (approved)
North – Conservancy District (CD)
Rush Creek Regional Trail Corridor
Neighborhood
Eidem
Site Area
15.901 acres
Number of Lots
61 (59 new homes, 2 existing homes)
Average Density
4.28 units/acre (new development)
Typical Lot Area
5,300 ft²
Conforms to:
Land Use Plan – With Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Zoning Code – With Rezoning
Subdivision Code – Yes
Variances Needed – with Planned Development Overlay
Notification Distance
500 feet
Homes
The developer is working with a builder who has selected six complementary single-family home designs.
Initially, three designs will be used with the other three phased into the later portions of development for
variety. Each home will have approximately 1,532 square feet of main floor finished area and a 540 square
foot (2 car) garage. The homes will have basement options given the grade—walkouts, lookouts, full
basements, and slab-on-grade options. The homes’ exteriors will be maintained by the association.
The lot lines will be created to cover the footprint of the house, garage, and deck and a few feet surrounding.
The balance of the land will be in common area outlots. The plans note a 6.5-foot minimum side setback and
City Code requires 15 feet between detached townhomes. There will be a minimum of 13 feet between units,
a 2-foot reduction from zoning. The builder is proposing different options on the sides of the units that could
affect the width such as a wider bedroom, sunroom, or garage width. In order to allow the reduced width, a
Planned Development Overlay is required.
The designs of the homes include garages that are 6.5 feet forward the front façade of the house, but a front
porch minimizes garage-forward effects. A stone base will appear on all units. A minimum 30 percent of the
6.1E Page 11
front elevation must be brick or stone for all medium or high density units. The units appear to meet this
minimum requirement, but it is recommended that the stone be wrapped around the garage returns and
entryways for a higher quality finish and to offset the closeness of the units with the Planned Development
Overlay.
Roadways
The applicant is proposing private roadways to access all units. The private roadways will be maintained by
the association along with individual driveways and walkways. At 28-feet wide, parking will be restricted to
one side of the street. It is recommended that each roadway is signed as private at both entrances to the
development.
Two existing homes will remain. 3608 101st Avenue currently access 101st Avenue directly. Two outbuildings
will be removed with development. 3600 101st Avenue is accessed by a long gravel driveway along the
eastern edge of the site. This driveway was once a private roadway called Abbott Avenue accessing additional
homes north of the Trail Corridor. With development of the Trails Edge Estates subdivision in the early 2000s,
this roadway was reduced to serve only 3600 101st Avenue. With the Villas of Rush Creek subdivision, this
home will be accessed by the private roadway and the old driveway will be converted to a 10-foot wide trail.
It is recommended that the new driveway be paved and the homeowner be involved in the association so far
as contributing to the maintenance of the private roadway. A third house at 3800 101st Avenue is not a part of
the development, but is surrounded on three sides by this proposal.
The adjacent townhouse development, Natureview Vista, has a private roadway stubbed to this site. Since
this roadway will not connect with the Villas of Rush Creek, the roadway needs to be finished off with concrete
curb.
Parking
Each unit will have a 540 square foot (2 car) attached garage. The front of the garage will be setback at least
25 feet from the curbs of the private roadways allowing for two cars to park in the driveways.
The private roadways will be constructed at 28 feet in width, which allows for parking on one side of the
street. There are several areas where on-street parking will be possible.
Pedestrian Connections
With the old 3600 101st Avenue driveway being converted into a trail, it will require some realignment with
the existing trail connection at the end of Chestnut Circle. A private trail segment will connect the private
roadway with the new public trail. A sidewalk is being added along the north side of 101st Avenue. This
sidewalk will be installed with development, but will not be continuous. A gap will appear in front of 3800
101st Avenue. Staff will discuss options for filling this gap.
Amenities
City Code requires an amenity plan for detached townhome developments. For this proposal, the feature of
the development is the adjacent Rush Creek Regional Trail—a Three Rivers Park District trail corridor
extending across northern Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove linking the Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park with
the Elm Creek Regional Park. There will be a connection to the proposed trail along the east side of the
subdivision. In addition, the open space for storm water management creates a nice amenity as well as the
sidewalk along 101st Avenue.
6.1E Page 12
Landscaping
All homes in Brooklyn Park must have at least five trees, ten shrubs, black soils, and sod. For association
maintained communities such as this one, those trees are often spread throughout the development, not just
on the individual lots.
Grading and Drainage
The site is generally flat. It will be graded to create two storm water basins and to shape the land for the
different basement types. The basins are being designed as dry; therefore, the landscaping plan must show
plant materials for an attractive appearance.
Utilities
The site has access to water and sanitary sewer from 101st Avenue. All water mains and sanitary sewer mains
will be public, but all services will be private. The association documents must state this and indicate whether
maintenance of the services will be the responsibility of the association or the homeowner.
The existing 3600 home currently has an overhead utility service. It is recommended that the entire service
line be buried with development of the subdivision.
Future Expansion
The subdivision is being designed so that additional 5 units can be added in the event the 3600 home were
removed or sold some of the rear yard. An additional 10 units could be included on the property to the west
in the event the Hidden Trail Estates subdivision does not move forward.
Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The site is currently zoned R2B, a detached single-family residential district. The proposed development
consists of association maintained detached townhomes; therefore, the R4B district is most appropriate. The
existing 3608 home will remain R2B, but the 3600 home will be rezoned due to the access from the private
road as well as the potential for subdivision. With the reduced distance between units, the Planned
Development Overlay is necessary. The Overlay changes are offset with other items. Staff is requesting that
the stone wainscot be wrapped around the garage and door returns for a higher-quality appearance as well as
the installation of a 6-foot wide sidewalk along the north side of 101st Avenue.
This proposed development exceeds the maximum allowed density from the Comprehensive Plan of 3 units
per acre (Low Density Residential). The proposed density of 4.28 units per acre falls in the Medium Density
Residential category. This development will need an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which requires
review from the Metropolitan Council.
Park Dedication
Park dedication will be required on the 59 new lots created with this subdivision. Outlots that are created for
common areas are not charged dedication. The current rate is $4,600 per unit, but the rate is set at the time
of final plat approval. The Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission will review the proposal at its
September meeting.
Neighborhood Meeting
The developer held a neighborhood meeting on August 25 to discuss the proposal with area residents. Ten
residents attended and provided comments that are included in the attached plans.
6.1F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Page 13
MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
September 09, 2015
Unapproved Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present were: Commissioners West-Hafner, Hanson, Jacobson, Fletcher, Morton-Spears, Schmidt, and
Stuewe; Senior Planner Larson; Associate Planner Nichols; Planning Director Sherman
Those not present: Commissioner Cupka; Mayor Lunde
6. PUBLIC HEARING
B.
Villas of Rush Creek Trail (Ramsay Properties, LLC) - Case# 15-123 Preliminary Plat, Rezoning
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a community of 59 detached association-maintained
single family homes northeast of 101st Ave N and Fallgold Pkwy North
Senior Planner Larson stated that three parcels will be combined to create this new neighborhood; two of
these parcels contain homes that will remain. The community will be served by a private roadway that would
be built to city standards. Each of the homes would have their driveways off of that road. The existing home at
the northeast corner of the site currently has a gravel driveway along the east side of the property. It would be
turned into a trail to connect to the Three Rivers trail and the current driveway would be re-routed. Staff is
recommending approval. In addition to the required Plat, there would need to be a re-zoning. The property is
currently zoned R2B and will need to be re-zoned to R4B, which is the Associated-Maintained Single Family
Townhome District.
With the rezoning there is a Planned Development Overlay that is included. There is a provision in the R4B
standards that require at least fifteen feet between units. What is proposed for this development is between
ten and thirteen feet between units. Staff is supportive of that with some tradeoffs. The Planned Development
Overlay does allow some flexibility in exchange for some higher development standards Staff is asking for a
sidewalk along 101st Avenue as well as wanting the applicant to make sure that the stone on the front of the
homes wraps around the side of the garage and the front entryway for a higher quality finish. A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is also necessary to change the property from low density residential to
medium density residential. This would need to be approved by the Metropolitan Council once the City
Council approves it.
The applicant, Bill Ramsay, stated that the type of housing option he is proposing is frequently requested by
residents of Brooklyn Park and there is a need for this type of housing in Brooklyn Park. The other
6.1F Page 14
development he built, Villas of the Mississippi, has had very little turnover making it clear that there is a need
for this type of housing. He stated that they did conduct a neighborhood meeting.
Chair West-Hafner opened the public hearing.
Rolf Gruber, 10137 Chestnut Lane North, stated that his property backs up to the property being discussed. He
asked Mr. Ramsay if there have been any changes made to anything discussed at the neighborhood meeting
and if the three different styles would have three different price points.
Mr. Ramsey stated that the base price of all three styles of homes is $320,000, but if additional amenities are
added the cost would increase accordingly.
Seeing no one else approach the podium, she closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Mr. Ramsey how wide the lots are on average. Mr. Ramsey stated that the lots
are all 53 feet in width and 100 feet in depth with a 42 foot pad.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Senior Planner Larson to explain what a ghost Plat is and how the Preliminary
Plat is affected by that.
Senior Planner Larson stated that a ghost Plat is a request from staff to show how adjacent property, or a part
of the property, could develop. There are two ghost Plats, the first being up at the northeast corner. The home
owner is going to hold onto about an acre of land. There are two lots shown as to how it could develop,
though there is actually room for five if the home is ever removed and the owner wanted to do it that way.
The second ghost Plat is off to the east. It has been approved for a six lot single family subdivision. In the event
the project does not move forward, there is room for additional units there also.
Commissioner Stuewe asked Mr. Ramsey, as the developer, what measures he is taking to let homeowners
know that this is an association maintained roadway and responsibility.
Mr. Ramsey stated that the documents signed at closing state the conditions, one of them being that this is a
private roadway. Additionally, there is a signage policy coming forward where the sign will be possibly a bigger
size and/or a different color designating private streets. He stated that is will be a private street built to city
standards.
Commissioner Stuewe asked about the utilities. Mr. Ramsey stated that the homeowner would be responsible
for issues arising between their home and the street and this will be stated in the documents also.
Commissioner Jacobson stated that she was at the neighborhood meeting and residents that were there
seemed to have gotten their questions answered and are happy with the development. She stated that she
currently lives in a Ramsey development and know it to be a high quality neighborhood. She stated that the
city needs more of this type of development and she is in favor of this project moving forward.
MOTION HANSON, SECOND JACOBSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
REGUIDING 15.4 ACRES FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NORTHEAST OF
101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
6.1F Page 15
MOTION HANSON, SECOND JACOBSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING 15.4 ACRES FROM
DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY (R2B) TO DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (R4B/PD) NORTHEAST OF 101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY.
MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
MOTION HANSON SECOND JACOBSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT #15-123 OF
“VILLAS OF RUSH CREEK TRAIL” SUBDIVIDING 15.9 ACRES INTO 61 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS NORTHEAST OF 101st
AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN THE DRAFT RESOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
Chair West-Hafner stated that this application will be considered by the City Council on September 28, 2015.
Agenda Item:
6.2
Agenda Section:
Land Use Actions
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
FIRST READING
Attachments:
4
Presented By:
Cindy Sherman, Planning Director
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. – Code Amendment #15-125 Pertaining to Commercial
Indoor Recreational Facilities over 2,450 Square Feet
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
September 28, 2015
Prepared By:
Lonnie Nichols, Associate Planner
MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT ON FIRST
READING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 152 OF THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY
CODE PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OVER 2,450 SQUARE FEET.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
At its meeting on September 9, the Planning Commission unanimously (7-0) recommended approval of the
Code amendment.
Overview:
First Industrial Realty Trust owns several properties in the General Industrial (I) zoning district and has
requested a code amendment to allow Commercial Indoor Recreational Facilities over 2,450 sq. ft.
Commercial Indoor Recreational Facilities are defined as “Private recreational facilities operated for profit and
open to members and/or the general public including health centers, tennis and racquetball clubs, indoor
swimming pools, video arcades (amusement centers), indoor batting cages, pool halls, and the like.”
Amendment Request:
Commercial Indoor Recreational Uses over 2,450 square feet are allowed by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in
Business Districts (B-2, B-3, B-4, BP) but are not permitted in the I district. In 2014, the Zoning Code was
amended to allow Commercial Indoor Recreation Uses under 2,450 square feet by permit in Business Districts
(B-2, B-3, B-4, BP, I) to accommodate small health club applications such as Snap Fitness, Curves, and Anytime
Fitness. The proposed text amendment would provide Industrial property owners the same opportunity to
have a larger indoor recreational user. The use of the building is required to meet the Minnesota Building
Code and additional regulations for conditional uses are proposed for the use.
1. Approve the amendment as presented.
2. Approve the amendment with modifications.
3. Deny the amendment keeping the existing regulations in place.
6.2 Page 2
Attachments:
6.2A ORDINANCE
6.2B MAP
6.2C APPLICANT LETTER
6.2D PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6.2A ORDINANCE
Page 3
ORDINANCE #2015ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 152 OF THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY CODE
PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OVER 2,450 SQUARE FEET
Text with strikeouts is proposed for deletion.
Text with underline is proposed for insertion.
The City of Brooklyn Park Does Ordain:
Section 1. Table 152.342.01 is amended as follows:
Figure 152.342.01 Uses in Business Districts
“P” = Permitted Use
“C” = Conditional Use “NP” = Not Permitted
Principal Use
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
BP
I
Commercial indoor recreational facilities under 2,450 square feet
NP
P
P
P
P
P
Commercial indoor recreational facilities over 2,450 square feet
NP
C
C
C
C
NP
C
Section 2. Table 152.142.03 is amended as follows:
Figure 152.142.03 Minimum Required Parking Spaces for Business Uses
Use
Minimum Number of Spaces Required
Skating rinks (indoor), dance halls, miniature golf, ice arenas
(indoor), health and fitness clubs, commercial indoor recreational
facility over 2,450 square feet, etc.
1 space per 300 square feet of floor area, plus 1 space per
employee on the largest work shift
6.2A Page 4
Section 3. Section 152.344 Additional Regulations for Conditional Uses is amended as follows:
ADD: COMMERCIAL INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OVER 2,450 SQUARE FEET IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL (I) DISTRICT MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS/PROVISIONS:
(I) Commercial Indoor Recreational Facilities over 2,450 square feet in the General Industrial District must
meet the following conditions.
(1) Site design.
(a) In addition to the requirements of §152.140 through §152.146, parking areas must be:
1. shown and designated on the site plan;
2. appropriately designated with signs for use by customers and employees;
3. large enough to provide adequate parking for all uses on the site;
4. separated by distance, location, and/or special landscaping provisions between cars and trucks.
(2) If located in a multi-tenant building or development, the use must be compatible with the rest of the
building or development.
(3) Signs must be in conformance with Chapter 150 of the City Code.
(4) Adequate lighting for night time pedestrian use must be provided.
(5) The building design and site plan must provide a safe and desirable pedestrian environment.
(6) The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
6.2B MAP
Page 5
The City of Brooklyn Park Zoning Map shows that the existing General Industrial (I) District parcels are grouped
and located along the west side of Bottineau Boulevard from northwest of Highway 169 to Interstate 94/694.
6.2C APPLICANT LETTER
Page 6
6.2D PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Page 7
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN PARK PLANNING COMMISSION
September 09, 2015
Unapproved Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL/ PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those present were: Commissioners West-Hafner, Hanson, Jacobson, Fletcher, Morton-Spears, Schmidt, and
Stuewe; Senior Planner Larson; Associate Planner Nichols; Planning Director Sherman
Those not present: Commissioner Cupka; Mayor Lunde
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc/Chris Willson- Case# 15-125 for a Zoning Code Amendment to
allow commercial indoor recreational facilities over 2,450 square feet in the General Industrial
Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit
Associate Planner Nichols stated that staff is recommending approval of this amendment with several
conditions that establish site design requirements to provide pedestrian safety and friendliness for this use in
the industrial district sites.
Chair West-Hafner opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one approach the podium, she closed the public hearing.
MOTION SCHMIDT SECOND FLETCHER TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT 15-125 TO
ALLOW COMMERCIAL INDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES OVER 2,450 SQUARE FEET IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Chair West-Hafner stated that this application will be considered by the City Council on September 28, 2015
Agenda Item:
7.1
Agenda Section:
General Action Items
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Attachments:
N/A
Presented By:
Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor
Appointment of City Representative to the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications
Commission and Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council
Item:
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
Prepared By:
September 28, 2015
Administration
Marlene Kryder,
Program Assistant
MOTION ____________, SECOND ____________, TO APPOINT JAY STROEBEL AS THE OFFICIAL CITY
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.
MOTION ____________, SECOND ____________, TO APPOINT JAY STROEBEL AS LIAISON BETWEEN THE CITY
COUNCIL AND THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL.
Overview:
The NW Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (NWSCCC) specifies that two members shall be
appointed from each member city: one who is an official representative of the City and one who represents
the community. The meetings are held every 3rd Thursday of the month in February, May, September and
November from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. Special meetings may be called as needed.
City Manager Jamie Verbrugge was the official city representative on the NWSCCC for seven years followed by
Interim City Manager Michael Sable.
Jamie Verbrugge and Michael Sable also served on the Executive Board of the Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Council in 2014 and 2015 in the role of liaison between the City Council and the NWHHSC.
Due to their departures, these two position needs to be filled.
Attachments: N/A
Agenda Item:
8.1
Meeting Date:
Originating
Department:
Agenda Section:
Discussion Items
Resolution:
N/A
Ordinance:
N/A
Prepared By:
September 28, 2015
(O&M)
Dan Ruiz, O&M Director
Steve Nauer, Street-Fleet
Maintenance Manager
Attachments:
1
Presented By:
Dan Ruiz, O&M Director
Item:
Franchise Fee Discussion
Continue the discussion of franchise fees as a funding source for street repairs.
Overview:
Our goal for this discussion is to continue the exploration of franchise fees as a funding source for street
overlays and street reconstruction. At the August 24 City Council meeting, staff recapped the year-long study
of street funding including the condition of the streets, recommendation by the Budget Advisory Commission
to use franchise fees for street repairs, community outreach, franchise fee implementation options and next
steps.
The City Council had several questions about franchise fees. The questions and answers are listed below:
1. Can we charge a lower rate for residents on energy assistance?
Per Xcel and Centerpoint, there is no way for them to do this. However, City staff could work with
residents to make sure they are aware of energy assistance and help eligible residents get information
to sign up for it.
2. Can we set up a process to waive the fee for seniors or fixed income?
There is not a way to single out residents by age or income, but a franchise fee spreads out costs and
lowers the monthly cost to these residents who could face a higher monthly assessment. Also, city staff
could help these residents connect with energy assistance options.
3. Could we do a city survey?
A city survey would be challenging because many people may see a franchise fee as a new general tax
with little benefit. At our public meetings, most people did not know anything about franchise fees,
even though they already exist in more than 100 cities in Minnesota. After the meeting, residents
better understood franchise fees and acknowledge it was a reasonable way to fund streets because of
the relatively low monthly cost compared to bonding and assessments.
8.1 Page 2
4. How much franchise fee revenue would be rebated to those already paying assessments?
In 2016, approximately 1,569 households will be paying assessments. This number decreases each year
as assessments are paid off as shown in the table below. The total lost revenue until all outstanding
assessments are paid is approximately $780,000.
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Households
1,569
1,299
897
595
200
50
30
1
Rebates
$263,592
$218,232
$150,696
$99,960
$33,600
$8,400
$5,040
$168
5. What would a sample of churches pay?
Franchise fees for commercial properties such as churches are classified based on their consumption of
gas and electricity. Churches would likely pay $35 to $60 per month for a franchise fee. A small strip
mall church could pay as low as $14 per month, a megachurch could pay more based on their
consumption. The utility company would not give specific consumption data to classify any specific
church because of privacy issues with their customers.
6. How are we future proofing the streets and new asphalt mix?
MNDOT has been fine tuning asphalt mixes for longer life and quality control has improved. Better
technology is used to measure the temperature of the asphalt when it is put down and stricter
compaction methods are used to assure there are less air voids, which contributed to raveling/peeling
roads in the past. We will continue to communicate with MNDOT on asphalt best practices.
Additionally, a street condition forecast analysis was completed. Our street condition goal is to have at least
90% of our streets in good condition, no more than 8% in marginal condition, and no more than 2% in problem
condition. The table below shows current and projected street conditions depending on the chosen level of
street repairs.
Street Maintenance Strategy
Today
5 yrs.
10 yrs.
15 yrs.
Do nothing
80% good
61% good
41% good
21% good
Current Strategy – Sealcoat every 8 yrs, overlay 4
miles once every 8 yrs
80% good
63% good
45% good
28% good
Franchise Fee – Overlay 10-15 miles per year,
sealcoat once every 7 yrs, reconstruct as needed
80% good
73% good
81% good
88% good
8.1 Page 3
It is anticipated that the City of Brooklyn Park needs to overlay 10-15 miles of streets each year over the next
14 years, which has a cost impact of approximately $2.5 million per year or $35,000,000 over 14 years.
Additional needs for street reconstruction are approximately $3.0 million per year.
A franchise fee of approximately $7 per household per month combined with a tiered rate of fees for
commercial properties ranging from $7 to $150 per month could generate the funds necessary for overlays.
commercial properties ranging from $14 to $300 per month could generate the funds necessary for overlays
and street reconstruction.
commercial properties ranging from $15 to $300 per month could generate the funds necessary for overlays,
street reconstruction and selected sidewalk/trail connections.
Attachments:
8.1A
AUGUST 24, 2015 RFCA
8.1A AUGUST 24, 2015 RFCA Page 4
City of Brooklyn Park Request for Council Action Agenda Item: 8.1 Meeting Date: Originating Department: Agenda Section: Discussion Items Resolution: N/A Ordinance: N/A Prepared By: August 24, 2015 Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Steve Nauer, Street‐Fleet Division Manager Jesse Struve, City Engineer Dan Ruiz, O&M Director Attachments: 2 Presented By: Dan Ruiz, O&M Director Item: Franchise Fee Discussion City Manager’s Proposed Action: Discuss franchise fees as a funding source for street repairs. Overview: Our goal for this discussion is to: 



Reflect/Recap on how we got here
Discuss community outreach
Discuss franchise fee implementation options
Determine next steps
Reflect / Recap on how we got here On September 15, 2014, the City Council discussed the premature deterioration of asphalt streets in the City. Staff was directed to research sustainable funding options for street needs and sought the help of the Budget Advisory Commission (BAC). Based on our research, premature street deterioration is occurring on streets that were constructed, reconstructed or resurfaced from approximately 1992 to 2006, which affects approximately 165 miles of streets. This is nearly 75% of our street network. Additionally, there are approximately 40 miles of streets that are 35+ years old and are in need of overlays. The cost to overlay residential streets is approximately $170,000 per mile. Our proposed plan is to overlay 10‐15 miles of street each year over a 14‐year period, which brings anticipated needs to approximately $35,000,000. Additionally, there is a need to fully reconstruct approximately 7 miles of streets in the southwest part of the city. Current city policy is to assess 50% of street and street light costs to property owners and the city bonds for its share of the cost of the street and street lights. To avoid residents having to pay a possible franchise fee for street overlays and possible assessments of $8,000 per household or more, staff reviewed the possibility to set franchise fees at a level to cover both street overlay and street reconstruction costs. In June of 2015, the BAC recommended to the City Council the implementation of franchise fees to fund street infrastructure repairs and road reconstruction instead of assessments (see attachment 8.1A). 8.1A Page 5
8.1 Page 2 On June 1, 2015, the City Council received an update on street repair needs and directed staff to do a financial analysis of franchise fees and to engage the community using franchise fees to fund street repairs. Community Outreach Staff hosted two community meetings on franchise fees on July 16 and August 18. The meetings consisted of a short presentation on necessary street improvements and a facilitated discussion on franchise fees. Approximately 140 residents attended the meetings. A few findings include:  Most residents were generally open to the idea of franchise fees provided they were dedicated to
street infrastructure  Many were in favor of setting the franchise fee to include the cost of both street overlays and street
reconstruction  Most preferred to pay a reasonable amount per month instead of large assessments
 Many preferred a flat fee instead of a percentage fee based on their utility bill
 Many want to get a rebate if they are already paying an assessment
 Residents living on private streets requested a discounted rate
 Most were pleased the City took time to ask for opinions and record commentary
As part of the meetings, the city partnered with the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute, which is studying local community engagement efforts. A preliminary summary of their findings, questions, and survey responses is attached (see attachment 8.1B). A final summary from the U of M research will be provided when it is available. Discuss Franchise Fee Implementation Options Franchise fees were first authorized by the Minnesota Legislature in 1974 and over 100 cities in Minnesota have them in place. They may be dedicated for a specific use, such as to fund street maintenance and repairs. They may be set up with a sunset date, so as to not go on forever, or so that the need of the fee is reviewed within an established timeframe. Some cities use a flat fee, for example Elk River charges $9 per household per month and a tiered flat rate for commercial properties. Other cities use a fee as a percentage of the gross utility bill, for example Coon Rapids charges 4% of a residential gas/electric bill and a tiered rate for commercial properties. Franchise fees may be implemented by adopting a change to the city ordinance and amending franchise agreements with Centerpoint Energy and Xcel Energy. Any ordinance change requires action at two Council meetings: a public hearing and second reading of the ordinance change. If the City Council approves the ordinance change, the gas and electric utility companies would be notified and they must file changes to the franchise agreement with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC has up to 90 days to review and file the changes. Determine Next Steps Based on community input and recommendations from the Budget Advisory Commission, the City Council has the option to move forward with implementing franchise fees. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A 8.1A Page 6
8.1 Page 3 Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: It is anticipated that the City of Brooklyn Park needs to overlay 10‐15 miles of streets each year over the next 14 years, which has a cost impact of approximately $2.5 million per year or $35,000,000 over 14 years. Additional needs for street reconstruction are approximately $2.5‐3.0 million per year. A franchise fee of approximately $7 per household per month combined with a tiered rate of fees for different classes of commercial properties ranging from $7 to $100 per month could generate the funds necessary for overlays. A franchise fee of approximately $14 per household per month combined with a tiered rate of fees for different classes of commercial properties ranging from $14 to $200 per month could generate the funds necessary for overlays and street reconstruction. A franchise fee of approximately $15 per household per month combined with a tiered rate of fees for different classes of commercial properties ranging from $15 to $200 per month could generate the funds necessary for overlays, street reconstruction and selected sidewalk/trail connections. Attachments: 8.1A 2015 BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL 8.1B PRELIMINARY REPORT ON FRANCHISE FEE COMMUNITY OUTREACH 8.1A Page 7
8.1A 2015 BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION REPORT TO COUNCIL Page 4 Budget Advisory Commission Report to Council June 2015 Good Evening Mayor and Council Members. It is a pleasure of the BAC to speak before you tonight. We are here in order to provide our Commissions insights into the City's budget priorities. As part of our ongoing review of budgets, we identify areas of concern or follow‐up from previous years. Directors are then asked to come to the Commission prepared with a thorough analysis and business case to support their requests and strategies. As a result, we have reliable data (year over year), history, and analysis. We continue to see awareness and understanding of the process and what the Commission expectations are. Through all this we see that departments have a better partnership with Finance and a better understanding of financial data. When we spoke to you in November we highlighted a number of areas we felt warranted action. The following is a discussion of the areas of concern and focus for the BAC these last six months. Future Financial Risks/Responsibilities The City has been responsible in maintaining a healthy financial position. Unfortunately, we believe the future funding needs will outstrip the City’s current financing model. While the BAC continues to explore alternative funding ideas, these financial challenges will be a long‐term focus for the Commission. Three areas of financial concern continue:  Infrastructure repairs….roads
 Emerald Ash Borer….removal and replacement of Ash trees
 Comparison of City’s pay levels to the marketplace
The BAC has focused on the possibility of implementing Franchise Fees. We met with Dan Ruiz twice and based on the information we were provided the BAC recommends that the City move forward with Franchise Fees to fund the needed repairs to infrastructure and new construction of roads. The BAC supports the sunset clause for the franchise fees, it is not our intent to have this become a permanent revenue source. The BAC learned about Flat Fees or % of Utility charges to the homeowner on both Electric and Gas utility bills. We are divided on which approach is most appropriate for the City. We are concerned about the impact on those residents who can least afford it, energy usage is not related to use of roads so why would we charge differently for higher use of energy, etc. We also heard that cities often combine Assessments with Franchise fees which the BAC does not support. We understand that there are added expenses associated with Assessments and a legislative challenge to put into the property taxes and our philosophy is that every citizen should share the cost because we all use the roads. We still have concerns regarding the additional funds needed to address the Emerald Ash Borer and the possible changes in the pay structure for the City. Personnel Plan and Service Levels Because the current service levels are strong, the BAC recommended that the departments focus more on a strategic plan that maintains that level of service. This should reduce the number of unplanned personnel additions. The current budget appears to reflect that perspective. 8.1A Page 8
8.1A Page 5 Economic development While the BAC applauds the growth of new business in the City we are also concerned by the shift of the tax burden back toward residential property taxes due to the increase in home values. We would like the City to continue the strong effort to bring in new businesses, which could help alleviate the burden on residential property taxes. City’s Scorecard / department measurement The BAC saw a preliminary version of the Corporate Scorecard and possible measures. We are awaiting further information from Administration and departments regarding the implementation of both the strategic plan and the scorecard measures within their respective areas. We anticipate seeing a baseline and year over year measurement in the coming months….at present the only department we have heard from is Recreation and Parks. We were impressed with the new Director’s philosophy of leading and managing Recreation and Parks. Communication The BAC is looking for increased communication to citizens regarding financial data and the challenges the City is facing and overcoming. For example, the tax impact/effect on budget as residential property values begin to rise. To date we have not seen an increase in communication to the citizens at large. We hope to see more in the coming months. Call to Action 
Given the funding needs for our City’s infrastructure the BAC supports the concept of Franchise Fees as
long as it includes a sunset clause.

Given our desire to maintain a reasonable stable fiscal position, we recommend small incremental
increases in property tax levies over time to address the projected financial challenges.

Service levels within the City are excellent and therefore the BAC requests strong justification for any
staff additions. We do not support an increase in service levels.

The BAC would like to see a continued push for economic development. We request that the City
continue to maintain high standards and expectations when looking at development opportunities and
think in terms of our branding efforts. We believe the value of coming to our City warrants a critical eye.

The Strategic plan has been completed along with the City scorecard. The BAC requests more detailed
information to assess. We are looking to see a baseline and year over year data in the coming months.

The BAC looks forward to seeing the final results of the compensation study and the City’s
recommendation for addressing the issues highlighted by the results.
Thank you for your attention and we look forward to another strong year. 8.1A Page 9
8.1B PRELIMINARY REPORT ON FRANCHISE FEE COMMUNITY OUTREACH Page 6 To: Dan Ruiz, Public Works Director, City of Brooklyn Park Cc: Josie Shardlow, Community Engagement Coordinator, City of Brooklyn Park From: Guillermo Narvaez, PhD, Research Associate and Principal Investigator; and Kathryn Quick, PhD, Assistant Professor, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, Univ. Minnesota Date: August 19, 2015 Re: Community Opinions and Input on Franchise Fees for City of Brooklyn Park Road System This report conveys the highlights of Brooklyn Park residents’ opinions about options for financing the upkeep and repair of the city’s road systems. Input was gathered from approximately 120 community members during two community meetings. These meeting participants overwhelmingly support introducing a franchise fee that would cover the costs of road overlays and reconstruction, and possibly also some additional amenities. The first community meeting was for residents of the Bass Creek neighborhood, where there is a recognized need for road reconstruction. It was held on July 16 attended by 101 residents. The second was a meeting for the community in general, held August 18 in City Hall, which was attended by 5 City Council members and 38 residents. Across the two meetings, a very high percentage of the participants were from the southwestern area of Brooklyn Park, and some people attended both meetings. This is not a representative sample of the city’s residents. Attachment 1 describes the discussion questions and format for the meetings, which included an informational presentation by Dan Ruiz (Director of Public Works), a question and answer period with him, and extensive discussion in small groups of 4 to 10 residents. City staff or volunteers from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs facilitated the small groups, and all of the input they gathered is compiled in Attachment 2. We direct your attention especially to pages 10‐12 of Attachment 2, where residents express the single point or piece of input that they feel is most important to convey to city staff and council members about these issues. Here we summarize the most consistent and important themes arising from the discussions. Residents’ Priorities for Maintaining and Improving the Road System Residents named a wide variety of priorities for maintaining and improving the road system, but there was great convergence around the following themes:  Fix potholes, sewer drainage, and other significant street repair issues, particularly where road
quality is worst or in areas that seem “overdue” or “left behind” for attention. Residents – including people who do not live in these neighborhoods ‐ repeatedly mentioned that the southwest area of the city especially needs attention. Others emphasized the need for a comprehensive road plan to make sure all roads are kept in good condition, equitably.  Keeping roads in good repair to support people’s pride in their neighborhood, good property values,
economic vitality, and the ability to attract and sustain residential and business investment.  Roadway safety, in general. (See Attachment 2 for a few specific suggestions.)
 Assessments for road reconstruction are hard on people with fixed incomes, especially if they have
an assessment to pay off when they sell their homes because it diminishes the value of one of the
major assets. For some residents, the assessment system does not make sense generally, because
it’s not as if you only use the city road in front of your own property. Some people have lived in the
city for years without paying an assessment, and some newcomers have to pay right away.
 Road improvements need to be properly done.
8.1A Page 10
8.1B Page 7 
Road damage from heavy vehicles, including from multiple waste collection companies.
Public Input on Franchise Fee Options The meeting participants were asked to brainstorm the advantages and disadvantages they see to adopting a franchise fee and to express questions they have about how it would work. These are summarized below. Generally, meeting participants felt the advantages outweighed the disadvantages and repeatedly brought up ideas about fairness to explain why they find the franchise fee option compelling. Indeed, almost all meeting participants came to support the franchise fee, once they had an opportunity to learn more about the road repair context and the financing options. Attachment 3 shows the strong shift in opinions that occurred over the course of these meeting. Most participants initially did not have enough information to formulate an opinion regarding franchise fees, but after the meeting most participants were very supportive of franchise fees. Attachment 4 shows the confidential opinion survey we used to collect this data from all participants as they entered the meeting. Post‐meeting data are still being collected and are not yet available for analysis at this time. Advantages  More affordable than an assessment, in general and on a monthly basis.
 Franchise fee seems fairer than assessment. Everyone pays, benefits, and has their turn to have
their road improved. You pay consistently while you live in the city, unlike assessments that some
people get as soon as they get here and others escape paying for decades. Applies to businesses,
institutions, not just homeowners.
 Franchise fee lets city plan with stable, dedicated, predictable funds for roads.
 Dedicated for roads.
 Provides a means to have good streets, which are good for residents’ and neighborhood pride,
property values, business activity, recreation and physical health, and safety.
 Sale of home would be easier, and current owner doesn’t have to pay off assessment.
Disadvantages and Concerns  Would rather pay nothing.
 Not appealing to / fair for people who are already paying assessments or for private roads to have to
pay the full franchise fee also.
 The $7 option for overlays only would be “double jeopardy” for people who would also pay
assessment for reconstruction. This is worse than no franchise fee at all.
 The monthly fee keeps on going forever, unless council removes it.
 Fee could change or go up. Don’t like unpredictably or risk that this would become hard to manage
on modest budget.
Persistent Questions or Requests for Clarification  What is the timing for determining whether you would pay an assessment and/or a franchise fee?
When will a decision be made about the franchise fee, and when would it go into effect?  Can there be some kind of discount, exemption, rebate, or other accommodation for people who
have recently paid or are still paying off a reconstruction assessment or who are paying private road costs?  What lessons can be learned from how franchise fees are working in other cities? Are there other
municipalities that successfully manage road costs without this? 8.1A Page 11





8.1B Page 8 How will the fee be set? How will projections of costs be done? How much and when could the fee
increase? Could a cap be set on this, or could it be held stable for some period of time? When and how will the fee amount be evaluated? Will fee always be used for streets or can it be used for other expenses? Can it be dedicated to
existing maintenance, not new development? What are the accountability mechanisms? Do businesses, apartment owners, renters, institutions, etc. pay?
Will franchise fee be a flat rate or a percentage of the utility bill? Will it be part of the baseline on
which other taxes are charged?
What are the likely impacts on property resale potential? On the city’s competitiveness in attracting
residential and business investment?
Public Input on Preferred Franchise Fee Amount Among the people who attended the meetings, support is strongest for a franchise fee that would be high enough to include road overlays and reconstruction. After Dan Ruiz explained the franchise fee and a few different funding levels and what they would cover, meeting participants were asked what amount of franchise fee they would prefer, if a franchise fee system were adopted. In small groups, they discussed three options: a franchise fee that would cover overlays only (about $7/month), one that would cover overlays plus reconstruction (about $14/month), or a higher fee that would include overlays, reconstruction, and perhaps additional amenities (about $15/month). Their responses are summarized in Attachment 2, starting on page 9. Only 3 people expressed a preference for the first option ‐ the lowest franchise fee option, which would cover overlays only. In contrast, most participants were strongly opposed to this option, feeling it would be a “double hit,” “double jeopardy,” or “worst case scenario” to have to pay a franchise fee of $7 for overlays and pay assessments when it was their turn for reconstruction. Participants diverged in their openness to paying an additional $1 month for other roadway amenities. Some were enthusiastic about improving pedestrian safety, sidewalks, or biking trails, while others asserted that they did not have and do not want sidewalks in their neighborhood, so they shouldn’t have to pay to improve them anywhere in the city. This seems to contradict the argument that it is fair for everyone to pay for reconstruction, even if they don’t need it. Research Project It is our pleasure to provide this summary to accompany the staff report to the City Council on a related agenda item. Our role has to support city staff with some design and data collection on the public engagement process. Our time is funded through a grant from the Local Road Research Board of the Minnesota Department of Transportation for a research project on public engagement and communication methods relating to local road systems sustainability and funding. We want to be clear that we are not evaluating city staff or their performance. Instead, we are gathering and analyzing data on what participants like and dislike about different engagement methods, and studying whether and how participants come to change their minds on policy options through policy deliberation. We would be pleased to address any questions you may have regarding our role and findings, if you would kindly direct them to Guillermo Narváez, the Principal Investigator for the project, at gnarvaez@umn.edu or 612‐424‐0015. Attachments 1.
2.
3.
4.
Discussion topics and questions for community meetings
Full compilation of all community input gathered by meeting facilitators
Pre‐ and post‐ meeting attitudes towards franchise fee option
Pre‐meeting opinion survey form
8.1A Page 12
8.1B Page 9 Attachment 1 Discussion Questions for Community Meetings on Financing Brooklyn Park City Roads Greeting and welcome by Dan Ruiz Question 1: What are your top priorities for keeping and improving road quality in the City of Brooklyn Park? (10 minutes) Presentation on road conditions, financing, and the franchise fee option by Dan Ruiz, including 10‐20 minutes of Q&A with him. Question 2: What benefits do you see from the franchise fee? (5 minutes) Question 3: What disadvantages do you see to the franchise fee? (5 minutes) Question 4: What questions do you have about the franchise fee? What do you still need to have clarified so that you understand what it is and can decide how you feel about it? (5 minutes) Question 5: What amount of franchise fee would you prefer? A franchise fee that would cover overlays only (about $7/month), a franchise fee that would cover overlays plus reconstruction (about $14/month), or a franchise fee that would cover overlays, reconstruction, and additional amenities (about $15/month). If you prefer the franchise fee that would include amenities, what amenities would you want to include (sidewalks, bike trails, etc.)? (5 minutes) Question 6: We want to be sure that we receive and understand the most critical point you want to convey to city staff and council about financing and maintaining our road system. What is your most important piece of input that you want to be especially sure that city staff and council members gather from your participation this evening? Please take a few minutes to write that down on one of the index cards on your table, for us to collect. [Where time allowed and they were willing, residents were asked to share this with others at their table.] Thank you and description of next steps from Dan Ruiz. Close. 8.1A Page 13
8.1B Page 10 Attachment 2 Brooklyn Park Franchise Fee Compilation of All Resident Input from Community Meetings1 Question 1. What are your top priorities for keeping and improving road quality in the City of Brooklyn Park? Bass Creek meeting Fixing potholes and overlay issues sooner Need more info on assessment costs and franchise fees Driving safety, quality Street quality related to property values Not sure at the moment Stop public service (like Curbside Pickup guys, garbage stops) damaging the road. The damage is not because of the neighborhood but because others who provide public service Fix potholes Resurface road (3 people commented at Dan’s table alone) Standing water‐water comes up in cracks Springs wore out road in a year (Northbrook Circle N) Too many potholes Embarrassed by street‐storm water in street No more rocks Want a new street Water under street is an issue Caution/slow children sign down around curve (Edgemont Blvd) Sidewalk (Edgemont Blvd) Bad curb‐backing out of driveway Want B curbs Last to be snow plowed‐can route/schedule be rotated? <came up at end, not necessarily considered highest priority by the person making the suggestion: Trail around lake Magda would be nice> reflects quality of neighborhood ‐ looks terrible right now safety ‐ potholes after the spring, it was terrible. they patched it but it still looks bad. more patches than road. priorities ‐ how long they last. used a bad formula so roads deteriorated. quality of products they use is really important. 1ThesenoteswerecompiledbyKathrynQuickfromthreesources:(1)Facilitatornotes
fromaJuly16,2015meetinginBassCreek,attendedby101residentspluscitystaffand
UMNfacilitators;(2)FacilitatornotesfromanAugust18,2015generalcommunitymeeting
inCityCouncilChambers,attendedby38peopleand5CityCouncilmembers;and(3)
residents’notesrecordedonwrittensurveysandcommentcards.
8.1A Page 14
8.1B Page 11 how much are they doing ‐ curbs? sewers? Floods when it rains a lot ‐ probably not helping. Sewer repair, flood mitigation costs more, but it's needed. How quick it is, the cost of it, the impacts to us. There's a threshold for what we'd want to pay. Do businesses pay more? Would be nice to have nice roads for kids to bike/scooter A slow down sign on Edgemont Boulevard would be nice. Cherokee and Edgemont ‐ people go fast. how to mitigate their speed? The New Hope side is beautiful and it looks like a dump on our side in comparison. Why are we left out in SW corner of Brooklyn Park? Maintaining street scape Good surfaces for biking, rollerblading No sidewalks‐this is not a high traffic area No assessments No potholes Proper storm sewer, properly maintained Repair curbs Repair what needs to be fixed – not everything No Potholes/smooth roads Funding without assessments Why just their area in “red” located on the map? Why do we need to improve street lights? We do not want sidewalks Could we get a group discount rate for watermain hookups? Are we getting new watermain hookups? Storm Drains (backing up), would like to see that improved Could we get the storm drainage incorporated into the new franchise fee? Top priority: pothole repair, smoothing roads Fair distribution of costs. Roads were not done properly, city now has to fix them, and why should taxpayers have to cover that. Shouldn’t there be a warranty so that the people who build are responsible for the quality. Fairness – corner lots with lots of frontage have to pay a lot more. Water drainage issues throughout the Bass Creek neighborhood area. Lots of flooding. Especially a problem October – April when flooded water ices up, causing people to drive on left side of road (also bc of potholes), people skidding on ice and police called out for fender benders. “The dips” are found in this neighborhood. Sign coming from one direction, not other, need two signs. Now they ice up and there are upheaves. One resident has damage to his yard – dips – from how the dips are patched and repairs. They patch the potholes, put tar over it, plow pushes material out of the way and it ends up damaging the yard. “I think we all agree about the need for repair, the concern is the assessment fee. $8000 bill at one time is a lot.” Somebody has to pay something. Might be bonding, might be assessment. “Goof up” in installation should be repaid /covered by contractor or engineer that was responsible for the bad materials, application, or design. The tar done last year is not holding together well. It’s been a long time since an overlay was done. Feeling left behind: “Why are we the only ones in all of Brooklyn Park in this condition? There were lots of roads and housing developments built at the same time and we’re the only ones showing up red on this map.” “Yes [points to other place on map], I noticed them repairing the road here, and that was already in good shape, and I was asking myself why the road was getting fixed there when ours was in bad shape.” Why repair other areas that are in good shape, and not ours. 8.1A Page 15
8.1B Page 12 General community meeting We need a comprehensive plan for roads that will address the worst areas first and keep all areas well maintained. It seems some areas are always nice and some are always crappy. That inequity needs to be addressed. Street lighting needs to be kept in good repair. Existing lights are burned out in some areas. City street financing issues are tricky for townhouse / homeowners’ associations with private roads. Snow clearing service is excellent and it is a priority to keep up that service and its quality. Want more stop signs for safety especially at transition from the freeways to residential areas or from commercial areas into residential areas. Safety concerns at some intersections where U‐turns are permitted. There are too many garbage collection providers traveling over the same roads. Garbage trucks and other heavy vehicles are damaging the roads. We have to pay off assessment ourselves before a home sale, which is hard on residents. Assessment system does not make sense, to have residents pay just for their chunk of road as if that is all they use. Threshold for filling potholes Appearance and ride quality Keep property values higher Rain gardens in boulevards to min. water in pavement Minimum construction impacts Minimum truck impacts New technologies Other measures to improve/prolong life of streets More trails or sidewalks Fair and equitable long‐term solution for road funding Improve safety Understand when to repair vs. when to reconstruct Improved recreation, provide more opportunities for pedestrian & bicycles Understanding what franchise fees are and funding structure How to deal w/private roads in the equation Coming in and out of Brooklyn Park from Maple Grove and New Hope into the southwest corner of BP there’s a really negative difference in BP as you cross the border. At 67th Ave and Flag Ave, cars bottom out. This is gradually getting worse and there has been no major reconstruction in this area since at least 1984. Curbs are cracked and broken. Do not want sidewalks. There needs to be broad communication so the community understands the issues & vision of how this is going to work Drivability – no potholes General consensus of Antonio and John’s table: Distribute costs fairly in view of no sidewalks on local streets For those currently paying assessments, what would be the additional costs for new finance plans? Franchise fee + assessment could double their costs. Who is watching the money? What about administrative fees taken by the utility for collecting the franchise fee? When is the franchise fee paid to city? Just do the roads – no other amenities How are costs divided; where does safety play in Less garbage trucks ‐ like Robbinsdale ‐ limit the number of haulers, by area. Sometimes they are following each other, there are so many of them. 8.1A Page 16
8.1B Page 13 Invest more up front and save on the maintenance long term Improved water drainage. We're at the bottom of the road and it dams up because of how the road was laid Want standard vertical curb that protects the lawn from the plows. Plows are tearing up lawn. Understanding/controlling traffic patterns/usage Replace utilities or see if they need to be replaced so that they don't get ripped up twice. Collaborate with cable, electric, etc. to see if they need to be replaced and do it at the same time. Might as well put in wireless internet. No potholes + 3 people echoed this Safe streets Well lit Visibility Clear and visible signs that well‐placed Good condition streets The need is not there to have to do maintenance yearly: wants a durable road that doesn’t break every year or very often Well maintained since 1981 Recognizes that some streets have more traffic Example‐ on a quieter street: iced over street due to water main break = created potholes = no repair until July. Repair was patching not total resurfacing. City council member said that street was scheduled to be resurfaced. So far no resurfacing. $15‐Replace sidewalks but don’t use the extra $1 to install new sidewalks Install additional trails Use good contractors when reconstructing streets‐fix anything you destroy Complete streets Keep streets the same width Did get better streets after paying an assessment for them. Question 2. What benefits do you see from a franchise fee? Bass Creek Spread cost out over longer time period Spread cost over all Brooklyn Park residents If Minneapolis and Saint Paul can do it, why can’t this city do it? Easier lower monthly payment If selling won’t have large assessment when moving All too expensive Provides for whole city over time Safety net for other streets Instead of $85 per month you pay $15. Over time build up funds for future projects. Keeps the money flowing for this project as opposed to using it for something else. If selling your house, you're not selling it with assessments attached (it's hidden). Easier to sell your house than having an assessment. As long as they keep the communication going ‐ say what they're doing with the funds they accumulate ‐ keep improving the streets. Transparency ‐ have to see what goes in, what it's spent on. Would be good to see a mailing explaining how much has been collected. 8.1A Page 17
8.1B Page 14 Not paying $8k up front More affordable Sale of home would be easier Rather do $14 month than $85 month Lower cost on a per month basis Makes it easier if you sell your home, you don’t have to eat the assessment form your home value Doesn’t negatively impact sale of home Not a hardship on older people or those with limited incomes Long‐term funding solution for maintenance of roads No assessments When you move, the next homeowner takes over the fee Flat fee Fixed Income/retirees have a set income so its expensive for them $7 is not going to hurt anyone Everybody’s sharing, everybody’s in the same boat, fairness, everybody will get their turn, using the example of an insurance policy. If it has to be done, you want to do it with the least pain possible. General Community Meeting More equitable Not one hit, like an assessment. Spread out monthly and over whole city. Pay as you go, which is a good system. More easy to swallow payment More palatable than an $8000 assessment When the house is sold, the monthly franchise fee is just picked up by the next owner. Makes sense for “people our age” (seniors) Smaller monthly payment We travel all roadways Sharing payment Payment of assessment at moving Good selling point Easier on the homeowner to pay Much more fair ‐ everyone will pay as you go Also no one moves in at the wrong time and has to pay an assessment. Some people can't sell their house because they have a big assessment hanging. 2 homeowners on our block have backed out of purchase agreements because of the pending assessments We, as Bass Creek residents, can't afford to pay the $8,000 assessments. We have so many long‐term homeowners who are seniors, fixed incomes, can't afford the assessment and can't afford to move out if they want to. For us it would be great ‐ we can afford $14, not $80 per month. Consensus of John & Antonio’s table: Fairness, everyone shares. All users pay, including nonprofits, renters, institutions There is no big payoff of assessment due at house resale. Home is easier to resell, offering more flexibility Don’t have to pay assessment off when you sell Not based on value of house Can adjust to proportion who don’t pay assessment Franchise fees are a positive for businesses vs. property tax 8.1A Page 18
8.1B Page 15 Can budget Pay as you go Flat fee ‐ % of use Rebate Private street discount You know how much you have to pay every month. Minimal amount a month. $ 15/hh seems like a good investment = especially for folks with a fixed income. You don’t have to come up with a huge assessment amount. Better to pay over an amount of time. Payment plan = doesn’t hit people with a surprise. Everyone doesn’t have the money to pay assessments. Convenient. Everyone in city shares cost Pay while you live in the city If you sell or move you’re not dealing with paying assessment Provides a means to pay for good streets Good streets=residents biking or roller blading to local businesses vs. going to Maple Grove More residents use the streets for walking, biking etc. when the streets are in good condition Flat fee‐same cost for everyone Question 3. What disadvantages do you see in a franchise fee? Bass Creek neighborhood Having the franchise fee of $7 for overlay only plus a $8000 assessment fee would be a worse case scenario. If Excel goes up 5% Franchise Fee goes up, could there be a cap? How much can the fee increase? Is there a cap on how much a single [incremental] increase would be? Will the fee be clearly denoted on gas and electric bills? Will fee always be used for streets or can it be used for other expenses? Will this be a flat fee or a percentage of something (house value, frontage)? How can they make the decision if there is spatial distribution of different situation How to explain the map(difference in different neighborhoods) Would like information as soon as possible Property transaction issue $15 forever. Inflation. How fast could the fee change/go up? How they determine the monthly fee ‐ flat or inflation (Xcel and CenterPoint determine the inflation rate) Would rather see a flat fee so it doesn't fluctuate. Council would have to act to raise it. We get assessed, 10 years down the road others are slated for assessments. The $7 fee would be worse than nothing, you’d get hit with both. Sales tax added on to fee Never ending Increase in rates once established Want flat fee, fair assessment Reconstruction – they were told 30 and now its 20? We get screwed if we pay for overlay, double hit None of it is appealing. 8.1A Page 19
8.1B Page 16 Can they built the road properly this time, so we’re not here again in 10 years with the same problem, looking at the problem again. We want the higher fee. But, we can imagine that people who need just overlays are not going to want this. So the message is, sooner or later this will be your turn. That would be the main concern we imagine from other people. And, $7 won’t kill anyone [this last comment is from a person who misunderstood and thought that would be enough to get BC neighborhood out of the assessment ‐ KQ]. How often will city review the franchise fee to see if the amount being charged is on track? Wouldn’t want to have fees go up again immediately. General Community Meeting Not have a fee for overlays Businesses need to pay their fair share Same fee for all users regardless of income or use Needs proper implementation structure for equitable reasons Some don’t use/have vehicles so don’t impact roadways Having to pay fees at all For people who live in the north and won't have to pay assessments the franchise fee is a hard sell Have to make sure we have a good mix of pavement now so the streets last 60 years for the math to work. Undesirable if tax gathered on utility bill went up because franchise fee was added to taxable baseline Undesirable if there is not sufficient guarantee that franchise fee can only be used for intended use, not used for other things, and not to be used for new development Undesirable if this would have a negative impact on market for locating in Brooklyn Park Already paying assessment Not enough details Private streets Potentially there is no end Finding correct amount for long‐term funding The monthly fees impact monthly budgets In disclosure statement when selling a house‐ you have to state that franchise is part of this. Buyers might balk. (“Why would I take your luggage?”) However, people might buy a house for the neighborhood. It will take some explaining by realtors for buyers to understand. Buyers might want to move to cities that don’t have franchise fees. None Inflation of fee Concerned about increases‐make sure public stays in the loop before just raising costs Make sure apartments pay their fair share Not necessarily fair to residents who just got done paying assessment and will now have to pay a franchise fee too Would the franchise fee be taxed if it were on the utility bill? What is the accountability system? Who is going to be the watchdog to make sure all $ collected by the utility for the roads franchise fee goes to roads? Could this possibly affect the sale‐ability of the house, if people see another fee imposed? There will be no end to this; will it increase with inflation? The southwest area of town needs reconstruction, and could get hit with assessments and a franchise fee. 8.1A Page 20
8.1B Page 17 Question 4. What questions or do you have about the franchise fee? What do you need to have clarified so that you can decide how you feel about it? Bass Creek How well are franchise fees working in other cities? How long have franchise fees been used in Minnesota? Can city council make the decision, or does this require a public vote?
How much can the fee increase? Is there a cap on how much a single [incremental] increase would be? How often will city review the franchise fee to see if the amount being charged is on track? Wouldn’t want to have fees go up again immediately. Will fee always be used for streets or can it be used for other expenses? Will this be a flat fee or a percentage of something (house value, frontage)? How much is recon per foot? Do renters pay if they live in a rental house? People who rent their house out would benefit from franchise fees. What's best way for a resident to influence their councilmember [to approve the $14‐15 fee, I presume – K!]. Black top in Park & Rec trails Opposed to sidewalks Documentation Increases “cost of 2014 might be different than 2016/17 Who determines the amount and when? Heard something on TV about other road materials – made with plastic or from recycled plastic – would last longer than tar. Do you know anything about that? General Community Meeting When will the City make a decision? What is the timing for determining whether you would pay an assessment and/or a franchise fee? When will a decision be made about whether the franchise fee will happen, and when will it go into effect? Is there another meeting scheduled?
How do you address properties on private streets? How do you address properties currently paying assessments? If everyone voted on $7, what happens with those who need assessments? We'd have to pay both. Could we get the rebate at the end of the year so we're not double paying? What prevents them from upping the amount? What's the schedule to evaluate if it does need to be increased? It's based on current construction costs. Won't it go up if the construction costs go up. How soon can we get the franchise fees in place so we can avoid the assessment. How do all the neighborhoods get information about this? Want to make sure they understand. Can we make a grace period for people who've just finished paying an assessment? Grandfather them in for a year or two? If you already paid an assessment in full, can you be released from the franchise fee, in full or in some part? Do large businesses pay more than small businesses? Will apartments pay? Who is minding the store? Is this audited? What rate increases might occur? Brookdale Drive: patch road. Is it a city or a county road? 8.1A Page 21
8.1B Page 18 When was the last time we had a large repair of this scale? How was it funded? Why monthly vs quarterly payment? Why city can’t charge it on quarterly bill it sends out? Apartment owners? Tiered scale payment? Formula? We’re overly taxed. Where is the money coming from? We a lot in taxes in MN Is there municipality in the state that collects enough taxes‐ especially property taxes‐ money to pay for roads? SD vs MN: SD has no income tax‐ but better road condition in recent trip Is 85th a county or city road? If the franchise fee will be a percentage, what will that percentage be? Would a franchise fee be taxed? How can this be guaranteed to be dedicated for street infrastructure? Can it be dedicated to maintenance, not new development? I want to be sure the franchise fees do not go to financing new development. What does $9/month cover in Elk River? Why is their figure for overlay + reconstruction lower than what is estimated for Brooklyn Park? What are the impacts of road quality on BP’s competiveness for attracting residential and business investment? What are the impacts of a franchise fee on BP’s competiveness for attracting residential and business investment? What are the implications of BP’s particular soil and other environmental conditions for the kinds of road construction and maintenance that we need and their costs? If you move, you do not have to pay off the franchise fee, correct? Is there any control on road contractors to make sure they do not raise their prices unexpectedly? Question 5. What amount of franchise fee would you prefer? A franchise fee that would cover overlays only (about $7/month), a franchise fee that would cover overlays plus reconstruction (about $14/month), or a higher fee to include additional amenities (about $15/month). If you prefer the highest fee, what amenities would you want to include (sidewalks, bike trails, etc.)? Bass Creek Neighborhood Resident‐facilitated table:  $15/month [apparently this was the majority or consensus opinion of the whole table]
 Yes, we would consider a higher fee to include amenities [apparently this was the majority or consensus
opinion of the whole table]
Chen‐facilitated table:  $14
Dan’s table:  Zero, but not realistic
 $14/month
 $9‐$10/ month
Josie’s table  I'd be willing to go the full $15 for sidewalks.
 We'd reap the benefits, avoid the assessments.
 We don't want to pay franchise fees and assessments
Kathy’s table:  Overlay only: Not interested. Would want the whole thing, construction side included, or nothing.
8.1A Page 22
8.1B Page 19 Overlay & construction: People will look at the overlay fee and say, let’s go for that one. That’s why we have to
go to the community meetings too to speak up for the higher fee.
 Re additional amenities: Do not want sidewalks here. Clay issues in this area. In front of Hennepin Tech we
need bike lanes. Not interested in sidewalk improvements bc they don’t have sidewalks. Our neighborhood
has done w/out sidewalks for 37 years, we don’t need any, and if we have issues w/clay we wouldn’t want any
more. If you want to walk, you can do that in Maple Grove and Plymouth, which have nice sidewalk systems,
we don’t need them. [!]
Lisa’s table:  Fee that is for both overlay and reconstruction
Steve’s table:  Both overlay and reconstruction
 No sidewalks
Terrie’s table:  They want the franchise fee over being assessed [no amount specified]

General Community meeting John & Antonio’s table  Split: 3 residents support $7, 3 residents support $14
Josie’s table  8 people at the table ‐ all said $15.
 Fixing roads, sidewalks and trails will help home values and our reputation
 "I'd pay $20 if I could guarantee all the bike trails were new asphalt."
Jesse’s table:  All five residents support $15 option
Jeffs’s table  2 residents support $15, 3 residents support $14, none support $7
Sandy’s table
 5 residents support $15, 1 person unsure
 Going to cost less in the long run… ideally.
 There’s more people going for sidewalks nowadays.
 No sidewalks is ok because in my neighborhood, there is not a lot of street traffic.
 Would like a nice to access to a bike path: sidewalks would help with that.
Steve’s table
 Majority prefer $14 per month
Kathy’s table
 One person: $14/month. No money for sidewalks and trails because we don’t have any in my neighborhood.
 Two people: $15/month because the idea of the franchise fee is to finance the system as a whole for the good
of the city as a whole. Besides, it is only $1 extra per month.
 One person: no position.
Question 6. What is your most important piece of input that you want to be especially sure that city staff and council members gather from your participation this evening? Bass Creek Neighborhood  Embarrassed by roads
 Good for BP to get us this information. $15 sounds good
 Yes for franchise fees! $15
8.1A Page 23

















8.1B Page 20 $15 ‐ agreement on that.
What about people who paid assessments already/are paying?
Whatever mechanisms they put in to monitor the viability of the fee has to be sound.
$14 fee, assessed evenly thoughout city, everyone gets there turn: in favor.
All or nothing on the franchise fee, either w/reconstruction or none.
Has to be reconstruction built into franchise fee or it’s not worth it at all. We don’t need sidewalks.
Overlay & Reconstruction – guarantee the fee will hold steady for X amount of time, don’t increase later.
[agree]
The franchise fee, but make sure it’s designated for streets, city doesn’t use it for something else.
Reconstruct franchise fee & built it properly next time.
No sidewalks
Flat fee
Fair assessment
End date/sundown clause
Keep under $15
Want to make sure franchise fee is decided equitably
Why are there different options on the franchise fee? The options should be all or none, instead of making
things more complicated.
People not getting overlays might say no to franchise fee
General Community Meeting  Please don’t miss how important it is that people who must move will not have the huge stress of an
assessment. I would be greatly in favor of $15 franchise fee.
 For the people that can’t afford an assessment, a franchise fee seems easier to swallow.
 Make sure there is adequate communication about the policy shift.
 I fully support going franchise. I think the community as a whole will benefit.
 We are a community of modest homes and modest budgets. We want a beautiful, safe community. Franchise
fees are affordable. Assessments are a huge cost to a modest family.
 No amenities to the streets. No flowers. No planers. No sidewalks. Just safe roads and streets.
 Every resident has the freedom to drive on any street that they want. A franchise free seems the most fair. An
assessment to me means, “I am only paying for the street in front of my house,” and nowhere else.
 Fairness – all people pay equally. $14 or $15.
 Not $0, but discounted free for residents living on private streets. If paying assessments now, drop when
franchise fee kicks in.
 People should not be requested to “double pay” assessment already in place and franchise fee. Also, realistic
information on proposed actual cost of assessment for area.
 No double jeopardy. If currently paying assessment, homeowners should not be held responsible for paying
franchise fees until complete remittance of assessment.
 When would the franchise fees start?
 The timing of a shift from an assessment based system to franchise fees is critical. This has to be settled soon
and be clearly communicated.
 Street upkeep is a priority. We need more attention, sooner rather than later. A fee is my recommendation.
 How to educate residents and realtors / bankers on the overall advantages to franchise frees vs. assessments.
It serves the broad majority / common good.
 Prevent and treat potholes promptly every spring.
 When putting in new curb or gutter not that path to Cavell Park needs to be widened therefore entry would
need to be widened when path is redone.
 Very informative meeting and information is being shared.
 I want the franchise fee to be enforced.
 Pro franchise fee for overlay + reconstruction.
8.1A Page 24





















8.1B Page 21 Don’t miss the advantage of the franchise fees. $14.
Knowing all residents pay the same. Open meetings are good, no surprises.
The quality of our streets directly reflect to the quality of the city. If our streets looks bad, it will reflect poorly
on our city. We should do the $14 or $15 fee.
Streets are the lifeline of our city. We, residents and businesses alike, should share the financial responsibility
of maintaining a healthy lifeline. I fully support a $14 franchise fee.
Please don’t go for the $7 franchise fee! Be aggressive and think long term! $15 / month will help keep u with
current issues, and plan for future density – with sidewalks.
Go with franchise option. $7‐$15 range is way more affordable to homeowners on affected streets.
Keep large trucks out of the neighborhood streets. Semis on 83rd and garbage trucks all over.
We don’t want sidewalks.
Get it done as soon as possible.
The key to efficient development is good communication with constituents. These meetings and process are
the foundation to reaching consensus and an equitable result.
Franchise fees sound fair overall for the long term and is important for the future of our city and its
reputation.
Franchise fees are one method of making the cost of road repair spread out more evenly over the lifespan of
BP roads. Everybody pays something, but nobody gets assessed after only a short time in the city.
We feel it is only fair for everyone to go with a franchise fee to avoid assessments and that those who have
current assessments be compensated or have their franchise fee reduced. We really would prefer the $14‐$15
franchise fee.
That we want the franchise fee of $15 monthly. It’s fair for al the neighbors. It should include apartments.
Everybody will pay for road improvements eventually, so go to $14 now
Look at the future. Don’t want to get hit twice with franchise fee & assessment
No amenities; no need for franchise fee for nice stuff
Franchise is more reasonable way to go
Strongly prefer flat fee
Very impressed with openness and transparency of process to install franchise fee
Please do everything in your power to make sure the reconstruction is high quality as possible.
8.1A Page 25
8.1B Page 22 Attachment 3 Community Opinion Survey Results These are the results of surveys gathered from the Bass Creek neighborhood meeting on July 16, 2015. The results are discussed further in the accompanying memo. Figure1showsresidents’self
perceptionoftheirawarenessofissues
facedbythecityofBrooklynParkto
maintainitsstreets.Asexpected,prior
tothemeetingmostresponsesrange
fromcompletelyuninformed,to
moderatelyinformed.Thisshiftsto
moderatelyinformedandwellinformed.
Thiscanbeinterpretedasthemeeting
havingservedwellthepurposeof
informingattendeesoftheoptionsthe
cityisconsideringtofinanceongoing
workofrestoringandrebuildingstreets.
Figure1‐Howwellinformeddoyouconsideryourselfwiththe
issuestheCityofBrooklynParkfacestotakecareofitsstreets? Figure2gaugesresidents’attitude
regardingthecurrentsystemof
assessmentsthecityusestofinance
streetreconstruction.Thepatternof
responsesisaboutthesamewhenthis
questionwasaskedbeforeandafterthe
meeting.
Figure2‐Continuewiththecurrentsystemformajorroadimprovements,whichisthatwhentheyareneeded
ontheirownstreet,propertyownerspayanassessment.
8.1A Page 26
8.1B Page 23 Figure3gaugesresidents’attitude
regardingtheneedstomaintainand
repairstreets.Itisimportanttonote
thatthereisasignificantshiftbetween
responses,inparticularthedeclineof
theneutralpositionfrom27%pre
meetingto12%postmeeting,anda
strongoppositiontolettingthestreets
deterioratefrom17%premeeting,to
26%postmeeting.Thisalongwiththe
declineofDon’tknowfrom20%pre
meetingto2%postmeetingindicates
thatthereisgeneralsupportto
improvingtheconditionsofstreetsin
theBassCreekneighborhood.
Figure3‐Letstreetsdeteriorate(potholes,etc.) Figure4gaugesresidents’attitude
regardingtheirwillingnesstoincrease
propertytaxestomaintainandimprove
streets.Afterresidentsheardmore
aboutthefranchisefeeoptions,their
willingnesstopayforstreet
maintenanceandreconstruction
throughpropertytaxesshiftedin
opposition(butstillshowingthatthere
areresidentswhomightsupportthis
methodofincreasingfundingforroads).
Figure4‐Increasepropertytaxestomaintainorimprovestreet
quality. Figure5gaugesresidents’attitudetothe
adoptionofafranchisefeeofabout$7
permonthtofundtherehabilitationof
streets(overlays).Thisoptionwould
stillleavethestreetassessmentsinplace
forthereconstructionofstreets.
Theresponsesshowthatthereisa
significantshiftinsupportfora
franchisefeeafterthemeeting.
Figure5‐Adoptasmallfranchisefeetofundstreetrehabilitations(overlays).
8.1A Page 27
8.1B Page 24 Figure6gaugesresidents’attitudetothe
permonthtofundtherehabilitationand
reconstruction.Thisoptionwouldbein
lieuofassessmentsforthe
reconstructionofstreets.
Muchofthediscussionsafterthisoption
waspresentedwereinsupportofthis
leveloffranchisefeesandtheshiftsin
attitudesareevidentinthepostmeeting
surveyresponses,inparticularwitha
significantshiftinthestrongsupport
from12%premeetingto48%post
meeting,andasignificantdeclinein
Don’tknowresponses.
Figure6‐Adoptaslightlyhigherfranchisefeetofundstreetrehabilitations(overlays)andmajor
reconstruction(inlieuofassessments).
Figure7gaugesresidents’attitudetothe
permonthtofundtherehabilitationand
reconstruction,aswellassidewalksand
trails.Thisoptionwouldbeinlieuof
assessmentsforthereconstructionof
streets.
Muchofthediscussionsafterthisoption
waspresentedwasinsupportandthe
shiftsinattitudesareevidentinthe
surveyresponses,inparticularwitha
significantshiftinthestrongsupportfor
thefranchisefees,andasignificant
declineinDon’tknowresponses.
Figure7‐Adoptaslightlyhigherfranchisefeetofundstreetrehabilitations(overlays),reconstructionand
sidewalk/trailconnections.
8.1A Page 28
8.1B Page 25 Attachment 4 City of Brooklyn Park: Streets Improvement Options CONFIDENTIAL Participant Survey Please complete this brief survey; it only should take a few minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept confidential. 1. Briefly, what brought you here today? What would you like to accomplish by
participating in this meeting?
2. How well informed do you consider yourself with the issues faced by the City
of Brooklyn Park to take care of its streets? (Circle one.)
Completely uninformed Mostly uninformed Moderately Informed Well informed Extremely well
informed 3. In your own words, what 2‐3 aspects of the streets in the city are you
particularly interested in maintaining or improving?
a) b) c) Please flip this page over and complete the other side. 8.1A Page 29
8.1B Page 26 4. There are a number of options to address funding street maintenance and
reconstruction. What is your level of support for each option? (Check one for
each option).
I am strongly opposed Continue with the current system for major road improvements, which is that when they are needed on their own street, property owners pay an assessment.
Let streets deteriorate (potholes, etc.) Increase property taxes to maintain or improve street quality.
Use bonds to raise money to maintain or improve street quality. Adopt a small franchise fee (monthly fee) to fund street rehabilitations (overlays).
Adopt a slightly higher monthly fee to fund street rehabilitations (overlays) and major reconstruction (instead of assessments). I am somewhat opposed I am neutral I support it somewhat. I support it strongly. I don’t have enough information

regular council meeting – agenda #38

Transcription

Similar documents

Subway Directions to Medgar Evers College Mathematics Department

The Sandhog Project - Dark Matter Archives

FORT GREENE

FRANCHISE APPLICATION FORM - Frankfinn Institute of Air

Mad Scientists On Wheels

Brochure - Lizotte

DER KOMMISSAR hospitality design

canarsie plaza - Schuckman Realty Inc.

biggiesb - day [B Ä RS]

BAMBU ESTATE MidCost. Mintal, Davao City NORI