May 9, 2016 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING...

Monday, May 9, 2016 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING – AGENDA #17 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

GREETINGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL I. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC COMMENT AND RESPONSE 7:00 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

2B. PUBLIC COMMENT 3A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA (Items specifically identified may be removed from Consent or added elsewhere on the

agenda by request of any Council Member.)

3B. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECEIPT OF GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 3B.1 Introduction of New Employees

3B.2 Preliminary Year‐End 2015 Financial Results A. GENERAL FUND BUDGET / ACTUAL SUMMARY 3B.3 Presentation of Awards Received by Brooklyn Park Ambassadors 3B.4 Mayor’s Proclamation Declaring May 9, 2016 a Day of Celebration for Mayor for a Day Essay Contest

Winner Charity Duran A. PROCLAMATION 3B.5 Mayor’s Proclamation Declaring May 15‐21, 2016, as “National Public Works Week” in the City of

Brooklyn Park A. PROCLAMATION 3B.6 Interview Applicants for Budget Advisory Commission and the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions A. ATTENDANCE SHEET B. VOTING PACKET 3B.7 LRT 63rd Avenue / Highway 81 Pedestrian Crossing Presentation A. MAY 9, 2016 MEETING FLYER

II. 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 Revised Agreement with Brooklyn Historical Society A. RESOLUTION B. AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY 4.2 Accept Bids and Award Contract for MSA Mill and Overlay, CIP 4002‐16 A. RESOLUTION B. LOCATION MAP – 1 C. LOCATION MAP – 2 4.3 Approve 2015 Deer Hunt Results and Authorize 2016 Deer Management Program and the Agreement

with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to Conduct the 2016 Hunt A. RESOLUTION – TO ACCEPT 2015 RESULTS AND AUTHORIZE 2016 HUNT B. RESOLUTION – TO AUTHORIZE LETTER

C. 2011‐2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS D. 2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS E. AERIAL DEER COUNTS FROM 2016 F. 2015‐2016 DEER/VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORT G. DEER HUNT ZONES 4.4 Approve the Transfer of Property to Hennepin County for the TH 169 / CSAH 30 Interchange Project, CIP 404013 A. RESOLUTION B. QUITCLAIM DEED – PARCEL A C. QUITCLAIM DEED – PARCEL B D. QUITCLAIM DEED – PARCEL C E. VICINITY MAP F. LOCATION MAP 4.5 Approval of Minutes A. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, JANUARY 26, 2016 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, APRIL 25, 2016 C. BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES, APRIL 25, 2016 4.6 Change the June 6 and June 13 Council Meetings

4.7 Request Funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation Through the Municipal Agreements Program for Flashing Yellow Arrow Conversions at the TH 610 Ramp Intersections with Noble Parkway A. RESOLUTION B. LOCATION MAP C. MNDOT MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT PROGRAM SOLICITATION LETTER 4.8 Authorize Entering into Agreement with SEH Inc. for 2016 Water Main Condition Assessment Study A. RESOLUTION B. AGREEMENT 4.9 Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of City Owned Property A. ORDINANCE

***RECESS TO RECONVENED BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING*** 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

5.1 Public Hearing on Street Reconstruction Plan and Authorization for Issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds A. RESOLUTION B. STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN

C. PRE‐SALE REPORT – EHLERS

6. Land Use Actions None

7. General Action Items 7.1 Approve MOU for Joint Master Planning for Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park/Environmental Area and Grant Letter of Support and Joint Applications for LAWCON Grant with Three Rivers Park District A. RESOLUTION B. MOU C. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR URBAN PARK CAMPAIGN GRANT D. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR JOINT APPLICATION FOR LAWCON GRANT APPLICATION 7.2 Appointment of Commissioner to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission III. DISCUSSION – These items will be discussion items but the City Council may act upon them during the course of the

meeting.

8. Discussion Items None

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.

Monday, May 9, 2016 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North

RECONVENED BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION AGENDA – MEETING #18 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 763‐493‐8141 or faxing 763‐493‐8391.

Our Mission: Brooklyn Park, a thriving community inspiring pride where opportunities exist for all.

A. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL – Mayor Lunde

B. ASSESSORS REPORT

B‐1A ASSESSOR’S RECOMMENDATION BOOKLET (LIMITED DISTRIBUTION ‐ AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT CITY CLERK’S OFFICE)

C. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS THOSE PEOPLE THAT CONTESTED THEIR PROPERTY VALUE AT THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION ON APRIL 25, 2016, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD WITH FURTHER CONCERNS.

D. BOARD ACTION E. ADJOURNMENT

***RECONVENE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING***

City Manager’s Proposed Action: Introduction of the City of Brooklyn Park’s new employees. Overview:

Employee Start Date Title

Administration

Wokie Freeman April 18, 2016 Assistant City Manager Teresa Summerbell April 25, 2016 Human Resources Specialist – Workforce Planning

Operations and Maintenance

Mallory Biegert April 11, 2016 Program Assistant III Operations and Maintenance / Recreation and Parks

Michael Kimble May 9, 2016 Project Manager Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: N/A

City of Brooklyn Park

Request for Council Action Agenda Item: 3B.1

Meeting Date: May 9, 2016

Agenda Section:

Public Presentations/ Proclamations/Receipt of General Communications

Originating Department: Administration

Resolution: N/A

Prepared By:

Marlene Kryder, Program Assistant

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

N/A

Presented By: Department Directors/Managers

Item: Introduction of New Employees




Agenda Section:


Originating Department: Finance

Resolution: N/A

Prepared By:

Alan Rolek, Finance Director

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

1

Presented By: Alan Rolek, Finance Director

Item: Preliminary Year‐End 2015 Financial Results

City Manager’s Proposed Action: Hold the presentation. Overview: This update is to provide general information to the Council regarding the year‐end results of 2015. The final Audited Financial Statements are planned to be presented to the City Council on June 27, 2016. Pending the audit adjustments, if any, may alter the results slightly. The Preliminary Financial Results will focus on the General Fund. As of May 4, 2016, the General Fund reports show an anticipated surplus of just over $1.6 million at the end of 2015. Approximately 3/4 of the surplus comes from revenues received over the budgeted amounts, with 1/4 coming from savings on expenditures under the budgeted amounts. The main drivers of the surplus as shown are as follows: Revenues: Overall received $1.173 million more than anticipated in the Budget (about 3% of budget)

General property tax collections exceeded budget by $132K due collections of delinquent taxes and fiscal disparities.

Licenses and Permit revenue exceeded budgeted by $605K due to increased development activity along the 610 Corridor and housing starts being up.

Grant revenue exceeds budget by $461K due to unbudgeted police and fire pension aid.

Charges for Services revenue exceeded budget by over $220K due to increased conduit debt activity and recreation activity fees.

The Fines and Forfeitures came in less by $176K mainly due to code enforcement and rental housing activity collections that are being assessed to property taxes, delaying the collection and shifting it to special assessments.

Investment income is less by $91K due to the nature of the market changes.

3B.2 Page 2 Expenditures: Overall spent $425K less than was budgeted (about 1% of budget)

Salaries and benefits came in at 101% of budget or $373K over budget.

Supplies expenditures are at 91% of budget or $118K under budget.

Contractual Services are at 86% of budget or $284K under budget.

Conferences and Schools came in at 69% of budget or $149K under budget.

Other charges are currently at 80% of budget or $87K under budget.

Contingency of $250K was reduced to $225K by Council actions to provide $10K Recreation and Parks Scholarships and $15K for Zanewood.

The overall General Fund Expenditures for 2015 are anticipated to remain near 99% of budget, which is similar to past years and a reasonable target for our overall budget. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: As we look to our upcoming budget discussions, the Council will need to take action on how to utilize the budget surplus. Staff will be coming forward with a recommendation once the audit is finalized. Attachments: 3B.2A GENERAL FUND BUDGET / ACTUAL SUMMARY

2015 Actual Amount Variance % of Budget

GPTX - General property taxes $34,894,241.07 ($132,404.07) 100%

OTAX - Other taxes $1,078,598.93 ($8,016.93) 101%

SA - Special assessments $189,119.59 ($54,119.59) 140%

BL - Business licenses $814,012.00 ($141,712.00) 121%

PERM - Permits $2,071,821.53 ($464,321.53) 129%

FG - Federal grants $167,076.08 $30,928.92 84%

SG - State grants $1,331,349.50 ($496,428.50) 159%

OG - Other grants $87,357.63 $5,642.37 94%

CHGS - Charges for services $3,092,763.91 ($220,233.91) 108%

FINE - Fines and forfeitures $395,357.87 $176,642.13 69%

INVINC - Investment income $126,999.72 $91,514.28 58%

OR - Other revenue $336,542.64 ($49,863.64) 117%

DP - Debt proceeds $0.00 $0.00

TRF - Transfers in $315,129.93 $89,072.07 78%

Revenue Totals $44,900,370.40 ($1,173,300.40) 103%

SAL - Salaries $25,299,648.49 ($169,392.49) 101%

BEN - Benefits $7,805,373.30 ($204,353.30) 103%

SUP - Supplies $1,218,696.76 $118,603.24 91%

PS - Professional services $642,712.92 $13,187.08 98%

CS - Contractual services $1,728,624.25 $112,087.75 94%

COMM - Communications $270,629.83 $29,479.17 90%

UTIL - Utilities $102,768.22 $9,531.78 92%

COS - Cost of sales $12,489.58 $12,610.42 50%

CONF - Conferences and schools $333,574.84 $149,792.16 69%

DUES - Dues and subscriptions $141,239.35 $14,068.65 91%

OTH - Other charges $340,292.91 $87,284.09 80%

CON - Contingency $0.00 $225,000.00 0%

GFC - General Fund Charges ($2,107,927.80) ($0.20) 100%

CG - Central garage $2,813,550.72 $0.28 100%

CB - Central buildings $1,724,880.24 ($0.24) 100%

ITC - Information technology charges $2,467,704.12 ($0.12) 100%

City of Brooklyn Park*live

2015 General Fund Budget to ActualSummary

2015 Amended Budget

Fund: 101 GeneralRevenue

$34,761,837.00

$1,070,582.00

$135,000.00

$672,300.00

$1,607,500.00

$198,005.00

$834,921.00

$93,000.00

$2,872,530.00

$572,000.00

$218,514.00

$286,679.00

$0.00

$404,202.00

$43,727,070.00

Expenditures$25,130,256.00

$7,601,020.00

$1,337,300.00

$655,900.00

$1,840,712.00

$300,109.00

$112,300.00

$25,100.00

$483,367.00

$155,308.00

$427,577.00

$225,000.00

($2,107,928.00)

$2,813,551.00

$1,724,880.00

$2,467,704.00

user: Alan Rolek Pages 1 of 2 Wednesday, May 04, 2016

3B.2A GENERAL FUND BUDGET / ACTUAL SUMMARY Page 3

marlenek

Rectangle

City of Brooklyn Park*live

2015 General Fund Budget to ActualSummary

LC - Loss control charges $426,979.92 $0.08 100%

DEBT - Debt service $2,934.00 $0.00 100%

Loss - Loss on disposal of assets $0.00 $0.00

TRF - Transfers out $53,211.17 ($3,211.17) 106%

CO - Capital outlay $0.00 $31,000.00 0%

Revenue Totals: $44,900,370.40 ($1,173,300.40) 103%

Expenditure Totals $43,277,382.82 $425,687.18 99%

Fund Total: General $1,622,987.58 ($1,598,987.58) 6,762%

Revenue Grand Totals: $44,900,370.40 ($1,173,300.40) 103%

Expenditure Grand Totals: $43,277,382.82 $425,687.18 99%

Net Grand Totals: $1,622,987.58 ($1,598,987.58) 6,762%

$426,980.00

$2,934.00

$0.00

$50,000.00

$31,000.00

$43,727,070.00

$43,703,070.00

$24,000.00

$43,703,070.00

$24,000.00

$43,727,070.00

user: Alan Rolek Pages 2 of 2 Wednesday, May 04, 2016

3B.2A Page 4

City of Brooklyn Park Request for Council Action Agenda Item: 3B.3


Agenda Section:



Resolution: N/A

Prepared By: Devin Montero, City Clerk

Ordinance: N/A Attachments:

N/A

Presented By: Brooklyn Park Ambassadors

Item: Presentation of Awards Received by the Brooklyn Park Ambassadors

City Manager’s Proposed Action: Accept the awards received by the Brooklyn Park Ambassadors from community parades held during the year. Overview: The Ambassadors are representing the City of Brooklyn Park at various community festivals and events this year. They received numerous awards over the past months and would like to thank the entire Brooklyn Park community for their support. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: N/A



Agenda Section:



Resolution: N/A

Prepared By:

Mary Tan, Communications Coordinator


1

Presented By: Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor

Item:

Mayor’s Proclamation Declaring May 9, 2016 a Day of Celebration for Mayor for a Day Essay Contest Winner Charity Duran

City Manager’s Proposed Action: The Mayor shall proclaim May 9, 2016 as a day of celebration for a Brooklyn Park 10 year old who won the League of Minnesota Cities annual Mayor for a Day Essay Contest, and will be the city’s Mayor for a Day. 1. “I, Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor of the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim May 9, 2016, as

the day of celebration for Charity Duran and her award winning essay.” OR 2. By reading the proclamation. Overview: Last summer the League of Minnesota Cities invited children all over the state to participate in their “Mayor for a Day” essay contest. The League asked young people in the fourth, fifth and sixth grades to write an essay about what they would do engage kids in government if they were Mayor for a Day. Charity Duran won the fourth grade level division. For her accomplishment, she won a plaque and a hundred dollars from the League. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: 3B.4A PROCLAMATION

PROCLAMATION

CONGRATULATING CHARITY DURAN ON HER WINNING ESSAY IN THE MAYOR FOR A DAY CONTEST

WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities, of which the City of Brooklyn Park is a member of, held a competitive essay contest for fourth, fifth and sixth graders across the state asking them what they would do if they were Mayor for a Day; and

WHEREAS, the organization received hundreds of entries during the 2015 Minnesota State Fair; and

WHEREAS, Brooklyn Park resident Charity Duran entered and was selected as one of three

winners who wrote a compelling essay which described what she would do if she were Mayor of Brooklyn Park; and

WHEREAS, in her essay she called for children all over the City to have a voice by having a

special time to meet with elected leaders to tell them their views; and WHEREAS, she proposed a program where kids can learn what Council Members and the

Mayor of Brooklyn Park do all day in order to spur them into thinking about a career in public service.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor of the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim May 9, 2016 as a day of celebration for Charity Duran’s winning essay and a promise that she will have the opportunity to be the Mayor for a Day this summer.

5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443

_______________________ Jeffrey Joneal Lunde, Mayor



Agenda Section:


Originating Department: Operations and Maintenance

Resolution: N/A

Prepared By: Dan Ruiz, O&M Director


1

Presented By: Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor

Item:

Mayor’s Proclamation Declaring May 15-21, 2016, as “National Public Works Week” in the City of Brooklyn Park

City Manager’s Proposed Action: The Mayor shall proclaim May 15-21, 2016, as “National Public Works Week” in the City of Brooklyn Park by one of the following: 1. “I, Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor of the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim May 15-21, 2016,

as “National Public Works Week” in the City of Brooklyn Park. OR 2. By reading the proclamation. Overview: During “National Public Works Week,” communities throughout the United States celebrate the importance of public works services to the everyday lives of our residents. The 2016 theme is “Public Works, Always There,” which showcases the pervasiveness of public works. Communities depend on public works, and the men and women of the profession are always there and always ready. Public works systems and programs such as engineering, streets-fleets, parks-buildings, forestry, water, sanitary and storm sewers, and solid waste/recycling management contribute to make Brooklyn Park a thriving community inspiring pride where opportunities exist for all. The quality and effectiveness of these services is dependent upon the dedication, efforts and skill of public works (Operations and Maintenance Department) employees. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: 3B.5A PROCLAMATION

PROCLAMATION

DECLARING MAY 15-21, 2016, AS “NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK” IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK

WHEREAS, public works services provided in our community are an integral part of our

residents’ everyday lives; and

WHEREAS, the support of an understanding and informed public is vital to the efficient operation of public works systems and programs such as engineering, streets-fleet, parks-buildings, urban forestry, water, sanitary and storm sewers, and solid waste/recycling management; and

WHEREAS, the health, safety and comfort of this community greatly depends on these facilities

and services; and WHEREAS, the quality and effectiveness of these facilities, as well as their planning, design and

construction, is vitally dependent upon the efforts and skill of public works (Operations and Maintenance Department) employees; and

WHEREAS, the efficiency of the qualified and dedicated personnel who perform these services

is influenced by the residents’ understanding of the importance of the work they perform. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor of City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, do hereby

proclaim May 15-21, 2016, as “National Public Works Week” in the City of Brooklyn Park and urge that all residents acquaint themselves with the issues involved in providing our public works services and to recognize the contributions that public works make every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life.

5200 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55443

_______________________ Jeffrey Joneal Lunde, Mayor



Agenda Section:



Resolution: N/A

Prepared By:



2

Presented By: Mayor Jeffrey Lunde

Item:

Interview Applicants for Budget Advisory Commission and the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions

City Manager’s Proposed Action: Interview applicants to fill openings on the Budget Advisory Commission and a vacancy on the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. Overview: The City has advertised to fill openings on the Budget Advisory Commission and the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. Applicants have been contacted and an attendance sheet is attached. The following openings exist (all City At-large):

• Budget Advisory Commission – three openings due to terms ending. • Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions – alternate vacancy. In the past, the Council conducted interviews of the applicants, with the Mayor asking questions in regards to the applicant’s background, interest of serving on the City Boards and/or Commissions, and their time commitment. In the packet there is a voting form to indicate your choices. At the end of the meeting, please pass your voting form to Mayor Lunde with your choices indicated. He will consolidate the votes to determine who will be appointed to the commission. The appointments will be made during the May 23, 2016 Council meeting. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: 3B.6A ATTENDANCE SHEET 3B.6B VOTING PACKET

3B.6A ATTENDANCE SHEET Page 2

Brooklyn Park City Boards and Commissions Interviews Commission Applicant Attendance Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 p.m.

Applicant’s Name (Alpha order)

Residing District

Confirmed Attendance

First Choice

Second Choice

Third Choice

Chesney, Steven Central Yes Watershed Commissions

-- --

Haskins, Robert Central Yes Budget Advisory Planning Rec and Parks

Paynter, Mark (reappointment)

Central Yes Budget Advisory (reappointment)

-- --

Pone, Eric West Yes Budget Advisory CLIC Rec and Parks

Rev. 050316

3B.6B VOTING PACKET Page 3

BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION (BAC) SHINGLE CREEK AND WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS (ALTERNATE) Monday, May 9, 2016

COUNCIL MEMBER: Voting Form to submit to the Mayor

BUDGET ADVISORY 3 Openings (3 Terms Ending) – City At-large Reappoint or replace Mark Paynter, and replace Susan Carter and Robert O’Keefe SHINGLE CREEK/WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED 1 Opening (to fill alternate commissioner vacancy) – City At-large

Commission Applicants Council Appointment Choice Name

Residing District

Confirmed Attendance

Watershed applicant WATERSHED COMMISSIONS

Chesney, Steven Central Yes 1st choice ________________________ (alternate commissioner)

BAC applicants BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION Haskins, Robert

Central Yes 1st choice ________________________

Paynter, Mark (reappointment)

Central Yes 2nd choice ________________________

Pone, Eric West Yes 3rd choice ________________________

Note: This ballot is public information per Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Rev 050516

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Public Directory - 2016 The City of Brooklyn Park is a member of two joint powers agreement (JPA) organizations for watershed management: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Organizations (WMO’s). One citizen representative and one alternate citizen representative are appointed to the Watershed Commissions representing the City of Brooklyn Park for a three-year term in accordance with the Joint Powers Agreement governing both Watershed Management Commissions and in compliance with Minnesota Statutes 471.59, Chapter 103B.201, and Chapter 103B.251, subds 5, 8, and 9. The meetings are held on the 2nd Thursday of every month from noon to 3:00 p.m.

Judie Anderson, Recording Secretary Open, Shingle Creek Chair 3235 Fernbrook Lane Open, West Mississippi Chair Plymouth, MN 55447 Ph: 763-553-1144 Fax: 763-553-9326

West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Name/Address Phone Appointment History Term Ends Commissioner Roach, John 763-566-9387 Date Appointed: Dec. 7, 2015 January 31, 2018 8116 Zenith Court N Replacing: Tina Carstens Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 District: At-Large

Alternate Commissioner Open Date Appointed: January 31, 2018 Replacing: John Roach Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 District: At-Large

Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Name/Address Phone Appointment History Term Ends Commissioner Roach, John 763-566-9387 Date Appointed: Dec. 7, 2015 January 31, 2018 8116 Zenith Court N Replacing: Tina Carstens Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 District: At-Large

Alternate Commissioner Open Date Appointed: January 31, 2018 Replacing: John Roach Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 District: At-Large Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions - Public Directory

January 31, 2016 Page 1 of 1

3B.6B Page 4 Arrows indicate vacancy

BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION Public Directory – 2016 The Budget Advisory Commission, established by Ordinance on March 17, 2003, is an on-going citizen-led commission established for the purpose of reviewing past budgets, long-term plans, resident survey data, and recommending budgetary options to the Council. The commission is comprised of nine voting members representing the city at-large. All members serve staggered three-year terms. Meetings are held at 7 p.m. at City Hall the 4th Tuesday of the month August through May.

Name/Address Phone Appointment History Term Ends Carter, Susan 651-334-9205 Date Appointed: May 3, 2010 June 1, 2016 8818 Kentucky Avenue N Replacing: John Hultquist Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 Date Reappointed: May 20, 2013 Residing District: Central Johnson, Shalin 612-598-3883 Date Appointed: Jan. 30, 2012 June 1, 2017 10322 Orchard Trail N Replacing: David Libson Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Date Reappointed: May 19, 2014 Residing District: Central Koopmeiners, Thomas 763-493-5279 Date Appointed: May 26, 2015 June 1, 2017 2008 87th Trail N Replacing: Tim Aronson Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Residing District: East O’Keefe, Robert 763-561-2966 Date Appointed: Mar. 5, 2012 June 1, 2016 7732 Unity Avenue N Replacing: Andrew Gonowolo Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Date Reappointed: May 20, 2013 Residing District: Central Paynter, Mark 763-503-7153 Date Appointed: May 20, 2013 June 1, 2016 4709 76th Avenue N Replacing: Rex Caywood Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Residing District: Central Qureshi, Imran 763-566-0905 Date Appointed: Sept. 22, 2014 June 1, 2017 2801 84th Avenue N Replacing: Alexander Collins Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Residing District: East Budget Advisory Commission Public Directory March 14, 2016 Page 1 of 2

3B.6B Page 5 Arrows indicate terms ending

Name/Address Phone Appointment History Term Ends Wako, Teshite 651-208-1376 Date Appointed: Mar. 14, 2016 June 1, 2018 5712 102nd Ave N Replacing: Sean Beattie Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Residing District: Central Winston, Hollies 651-202-8846 Date Appointed: May 26, 2015 June 1, 2018 9327 Nantwick Lane Replacing: Debra Englund Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Residing District: Central Wright, Julia 763-315-8667 Date Appointed: Mar. 3, 2014 June 1, 2018 3624 92nd Avenue N Replacing: Benard Muko Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Date Reappointed: May 26, 2015 Residing District: East Terry Parks, Council Liaison 622 73rd Way Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 ph 763-561-4371 vm 763-493-8097 [email protected] Alan Rolek, Staff Liaison 5200 85th Avenue N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 w 763-493-8150 [email protected] Budget Advisory Commission Public Directory March 14, 2016 Page 2 of 2

3B.6B Page 6 Arrows indicate terms ending




Agenda Section:


Originating Department: Community Development

Resolution: N/A

Prepared By:

Emily Carr, Development Project Coordinator

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

1

Presented By:

Kim Berggren, Director of Community Development

Item: LRT 63rd Avenue / Highway 81 Pedestrian Crossing Presentation

City Manager’s Proposed Action: None Overview: The purpose of this presentation is to provide the City Council and community with updated technical information related to the pedestrian crossing options at 63rd Avenue and Bottineau Boulevard (CSAH 81), near the planned 63rd Avenue Light Rail Transit (LRT) station. The presentation will include an overview of the following:

At‐grade pedestrian improvement options

Pedestrian bridge options On November 12, 2015, the METRO Blue Line Extension Corridor Management Committee (CMC) directed Bottineau Project Office (BPO) staff to explore pedestrian crossing options, including the feasibility of a pedestrian bridge, at the 63rd Avenue and CSAH 81 intersection. This information will also be shared as part of an Open House prior to the Council presentation. See attached flyer. Open House – 63rd Avenue Pedestrian Crossing Options May 9, 2016 Open House: 6:00‐7:00 p.m., City Hall Lobby Technical Presentation: 7:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers Background: The BPO opened in January 2015 to advance the design of the Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Project (Bottineau LRT). The BPO is involved in engineering and public outreach throughout the light rail planning process.

3B.7 Page 2 Primary issues/alternatives to consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: 3B.7A MAY 9, 2016 MEETING FLYER

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE AND TECHNICAL PRESENTATION

TO THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY COUNCIL

Pedestrian crossing options at the planned 63rd Avenue Light Rail Transit Station

Planners are looking at how to make it easier for people walking and biking to cross Hwy. 81 to get to the

planned 63rd Avenue light rail station in Brooklyn Park.

Join us at this open house to learn about pedestrian crossings and discuss pedestrian issues with METRO

Blue Line Extension Project staff. Following the open house, Blue Line Extension staff will make a technical

presentation to the Brooklyn Park City Council.

For more information or for any individual who requires assistance to participate, please contact Community

Outreach Coordinator Juan Rangel at 612-373-5338 or [email protected]. Requests for special

assistance should be made at least three business days before the meeting.

Can’t make it to the meeting? Meeting materials will be posted on the project website, www.BlueLineExt.org.

Monday, May 9, 2016 Brooklyn Park City Hall

5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park Map: https://goo.gl/maps/eTPP3C9AgrP2

Open House: 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. Presentation to City Council: 7:00 p.m.

View of the intersection from the 63rd Avenue Park & Ride lot

3B.7A MAY 9, 2016 MEETING FLYER Page 3

City of Brooklyn Park Request for Council Action Agenda Item: 4.1


Agenda Section: Consent

Originating Department: Recreation and Parks

Resolution: X

Prepared By: Jody Yungers, Director


2

Presented By: Jody Yungers, Director

Item: Revised Agreement with Brooklyn Historical Society

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016-_____ TO APPROVE REVISED AGREEMENT WITH BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Overview: In April 2009, the City agreed to lease space at the Community Activity Center (CAC) for the Brooklyn Historical Society (BHS) for three years, at a cost of $700 per month. This lease was to end on June 30, 2012. The lease agreement included use of three private offices, exhibit space and storage room on the 2nd floor of the CAC (630 sq. ft.). The City added a card reader security lock to the second level, creating a separate zone for both the Recreation and Parks Department and BHS. In November 2011, the lease agreement was renegotiated and the City Council agreed to a new rental fee of $100 per month. Since 2012, the BHS has paid $1,200 per year. As part of this agreement, the City Council was agreeable to a lease reduction with the understanding of in-kind services to include assisting with research for city reports, assisting residents with research, provide articles for inclusion in Park Pages and the city website, and assisting the City with events. The new agreement was for ten years, and would expire in 2021. In December of 2015, staff met with the BHS explaining changing staff office needs for the Recreation and Parks Department and came to an agreement as to reclaiming a portion of the 2nd floor leased space. The revised agreement includes the following:

1. Terms of the lease to be in effect through 2021; 2. Lease Space will be reduced from 630 sq. ft. to 325 sq. ft. and will include the use of one office area

and the original storage room; 3. Monthly rent to be $1 per month or $12.00 per year; 4. BHS continue to provide in-kind services to include assisting with research for city reports, assisting

residents with research, provide articles for inclusion in Park Pages and the city website, and assisting the City with events; and

5. BHS to continue to provide to the City of Brooklyn Park a certificate of insurance, as prescribed in the agreement.

4.1 Page 2 Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider:

• Are the terms of the new agreement for the use of space within the Community Activity Center acceptable?

Budgetary/Fiscal Issues:

• Current lease is for $1,200 per year. Proposed lease with reduced square footage is $12 per year. Attachments: 4.1A RESOLUTION 4.1B AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY

4.1A RESOLUTION Page 3

RESOLUTION #2016 ‐

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REVISED AGREEMENT WITH

BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY

WHEREAS, in April 2009, the City agreed to lease space at the Community Activity Center (CAC) for the Brooklyn Historical Society (BHS) for three years, at a cost of $700 per month. This lease was to end on June 30, 2012; and

WHEREAS, the lease agreement included use of three private offices, exhibit space and storage room on the 2nd floor of the CAC (630 sq. ft.). The City added a card reader security lock to the second level, creating a separate zone for both the Recreation and Parks Department and BHS; and

WHEREAS, in November 2011, the lease agreement was renegotiated and the City Council agreed to a new rental fee of $100 per month. Since 2012, that BHS has paid $1,200 per year. As part of this agreement the City Council was agreeable to a lease reduction with the understanding of in‐kind services to include assisting with research for city reports, assisting residents with research, provide articles for inclusion in Park Pages and the city website, and assisting the City with events. The new agreement was for ten years, and would expire in 2021; and

WHEREAS, in December of 2015, staff met with the BHS explaining changing staff office needs for the Recreation and Parks Department and came to an agreement as to reclaiming a portion of the 2nd floor leased space. The revised agreement includes the following: 1. Terms of the lease to be in effect through 2021; 2. Lease Space will be reduced from 630 sq. ft. to 325 sq. ft. and will include the use of one office area and original storage room; 3. Monthly rent to be $1 per month or $12.00 per year; 4. BHS continue to provide in‐kind services to include assisting with research for city reports, assisting residents with research, provide articles for inclusion in Park Pages and the city website, and assisting the City with events; and 5. BHS to continue to provide to the city of Brooklyn Park a certificate of insurance, as prescribe in agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to approve the revised agreement with Brooklyn Historical Society.

4.1B AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY Page 4

AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK

AND THE BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY

This AMENDED AND RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT is made this 9th day of May 2016, by and between the CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“Landlord”), and the BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Tenant”). Landlord and Tenant, intending to be legally bound, hereby covenant and agree as follows:

ARTICLE I. Leased Premises

Landlord does hereby lease, demise, and let unto Tenant, and Tenant does hereby hire and take from Landlord, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein (the “Lease”), the premises shown by crosshatch on Exhibit A hereto, consisting of 325 square feet (the “Leased Premises”), located on the second level of the Brooklyn Park Community Activity Center at 5600 85th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Building”).

ARTICLE II. Term and Termination

2.1 The term of the Lease shall commence on April 25, 2016 (the “Commencement Date”); and the Lease shall terminate on December 31, 2021 (the “Termination Date”). 2.2 At any time prior to the Termination Date, either party may terminate this Lease without penalty for any reason or for no reason after ninety (90) days notice to the other party. In the event this Lease or any other applicable law or regulation requires a different notice period, that notice requirement shall be applicable and the ninety (90) notice period stated in this paragraph 2.2 shall not apply.

ARTICLE III. Rent

3.1 Tenant shall pay to Landlord “Base Rent” of $1.00 per month for the duration of this Lease. The Base Rent shall be payable in advance to the City of Brooklyn Park on or before the first (1st) day of each and every month and continuing during the term of this Lease. 3.2 As additional consideration for its use of the Leased Premises, Tenant shall provide the following services to Landlord at no additional cost to Landlord:

i. Research support to Landlord upon receiving requests from the Landlord for historical information regarding; i.e., neighborhoods, farms, and civic organizations;

ii. Provide no-cost assistance and support to City of Brooklyn Park residents seeking historical

research and information;

iii. Submit written stories and photographs on a regular schedule to Landlord for publication in “Park Pages,” on Landlord’s web site, and in other Landlord media publications; and

iv. Participate in or assist, or both, in the coordination of events and historical displays such as Tater

Daze, Eidem Homestead, and other cultural heritage events that occur in the City of Brooklyn Park. 4.1B Page 5

ARTICLE IV.

Additional Rent

Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, Tenant covenants and agrees that if at any time it fails to pay any amount required by the Lease, or to obtain, pay for, maintain, or deliver any of the insurance policies herein provided for, or fails to make any other payment or perform any other act required to be made or performed by the Lease, then Landlord, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, without waiving or releasing Tenant from any obligation of Tenant contained in the Lease, and without any obligation to do so, may effect any such insurance coverage and pay premiums therefor and may make any other payment or perform any other act on the part of Tenant to be made and performed as provided in the Lease, in such manner and to such extent as Landlord may deem reasonably desirable, and in exercising such right to pay necessary and incidental costs and expenses. All sums so paid by Landlord and all necessary and any such act by Landlord, together with interest thereon at the maximum rate permitted by law or 6% per annum, whichever is less, from the date of making of such expenditure by Landlord, shall be payable to Landlord as “Additional Rent,” and except as otherwise provided for in the Lease, shall be payable on demand or at the option of Landlord may be added to any monthly rental then due or thereafter becoming due under the Lease. Tenant covenants to pay any such sum or sums with interest as aforesaid and Landlord shall have (in addition to any right or remedy of Landlord) the same rights and remedies in the event of nonpayment by Tenant as in the case of default by Tenant in payment of rent.

ARTICLE V. Taxes

5.1 Provided that Tenant shall timely make all payments of rent required hereunder, Landlord shall pay before delinquent all real estate taxes and installments of special assessments with respect to the Leased Premises due and payable during the term of this Lease. 5.2 Tenant shall pay before delinquency all taxes, assessments, license fees, and other charges that are levied and assessed against Tenant’s personal property installed or located in or on the Leased Premises and that become payable during the term of this Lease.

ARTICLE VI.

Utilities 6.1 Landlord shall pay for certain utility services including gas, electricity, domestic water, heat, air conditioning, and sewer furnished Tenant for use in the Leased Premises. Tenant shall pay for all telecommunications services for the Leased Premises and may negotiate with Landlord a separate arrangement for the use of Landlord’s telephone system. Landlord shall not be liable in any way to Tenant for any failure or defect in the supply or character of electricity, water, sewer, or gas furnished by reason of any change, requirement, act, neglect, or omission of the public utility serving the Leased Premises or for any reason not attributed to Landlord. 6.2 Tenant agrees that Landlord shall not be liable for failure to supply any service when Landlord uses reasonable diligence to supply the same, it being understood that Landlord reserves the right to temporarily discontinue such services, or any of them, at such times as may be necessary by reason of accident, unavailability of employees, failure of supply, repairs, alterations or improvements, or by reason of fire, strikes, flood, lockouts, riots, acts of God or any other happening beyond the reasonable control of Landlord. When Landlord causes services to be rendered by independent third parties, Landlord shall have no liability for the performance thereof or liability therefor. 6.3 All garbage and refuse shall be kept in containers and shall be placed outside of the Leased Premises prepared for processing and/or collection. Landlord shall contract for garbage and refuse collection at Landlord’s cost.

4.1B Page 6

ARTICLE VII. Maintenance and Repairs

7.1 Subject to Article XI, Landlord shall operate, maintain and make all necessary repairs and replacements to: (a) the structural portions of the Building, (b) the exterior walls of the Building, including glass and glazing, (c) the roof, (d) exterior windows, (e) the mechanical plumbing, heating, air conditioning and/or cooling, ventilating and electrical equipment and systems, (f) sidewalks, parking areas and landscaped areas adjacent to the Building, and (g) damage (other than casualty damage) caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of Landlord or its agents, employees or contractors, in each case, throughout the Term. The repair and replacement obligations of Landlord following damage to or destruction of the Leased Premises as a result of casualty are governed by Article XI, not by this Section 7.1. 7.2 Subject to: (a) reasonable wear and tear (but only to an extent consistent with the Leased Premises remaining in reasonably good condition and repair); (b) casualty damage for which it is not the responsibility of Tenant to perform restoration or repair in accordance with this Lease; (c) damage (other than casualty damage) caused by the negligence or deliberate misconduct of Landlord or Landlord’s agents, employees or contractors; (d) damage that is covered by the property and casualty insurance policy or policies on the Leased Premises required to be maintained by Landlord under this Lease (or would be covered if Landlord were maintaining such insurance) (to the extent actually covered, taking into account the deductibles, policy limits and exclusions of such insurance policies); (e) damage that is Landlord’s obligation under this Lease to remedy or that results from Landlord’s failure to fulfill such obligations; and, (f) damage to the interior of the Leased Premises resulting from causes outside the Leased Premises other than Tenant’s acts or omissions; Tenant shall maintain, and make non-structural repairs to, the Leased Premises and keep the same in reasonably good condition and repair. Subject to the preceding sentence, Tenant’s obligation shall include the obligation to maintain and repair all nonstructural walls; floor coverings; ceilings; partitions, and all other fixtures, appliances and facilities furnished by Landlord or Tenant within the Leased Premises, and shall also include the obligation to repair all damage caused by the negligence or deliberate misconduct of Tenant, its agents, employees, invitees and licensees to the Leased Premises, whatever the scope of the work of maintenance or repair required. Subject to Article XI, nothing contained in this Section 7.2 shall be deemed to impose upon Tenant the obligation to perform work or maintenance or repair to the extent required by reason of Landlord’s negligence, willful misconduct or wrongful acts or those of Landlord’s agents, employees or contractors. 7.3 At the expiration or termination of this Lease, Tenant shall surrender the Leased Premises in substantially the same condition as existed on the commencement date of this Lease, ordinary wear and tear excepted. All fixtures which have become attached shall be part of the Leased Premises, except trade fixtures. Further, within ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the term, Landlord shall during reasonable business hours, have the right to show the Leased Premises to third parties for the purposes of again leasing same.

ARTICLE VIII Alterations

8.1 Tenant may, from time to time during the term, make, at its own cost and expense, any alterations or changes in the interior of the Leased Premises in good and workmanlike manner in compliance with all applicable requirements of law, provided Tenant follows the notice procedure and obtains Landlord’s consent where required, all in accordance with this Article. Landlord agrees to cooperate with Tenant for the purpose of securing necessary permits for any changes, alterations, or additions permitted under this section without expense to Landlord. Upon completion of such alterations and if applicable, Tenant shall present to Landlord a copy of the endorsement to Tenant’s fire and extended coverage insurance policy which endorsement shall incorporate said alterations into the policy. All costs of any such work shall be paid promptly by Tenant so as to prevent the assertion of any liens for labor or materials. Tenant agrees to advise Landlord in writing of the date upon which such alterations will commence in order to permit Landlord to post notice of non-responsibility. 8.2 Prior to the initiation of any alterations, Tenant shall give Landlord written notice thereof and specify the work to be performed in reasonable detail and include the names of the contractors and materialmen to be utilized. After receipt of said notice, Landlord shall have a reasonable period of time during which it shall make a determination, in its sole

4.1B Page 7

discretion, as to whether or not the proposed work would create a structural or design change at the Leased Premises. Tenant shall provide Landlord upon request with any further information reasonably necessary for such determination by Landlord, and Tenant shall not commence work or accept materials prior to receiving written notice of Landlord’s determination. If Landlord determines that the proposed work would create a structural or design change, then the same must be approved in writing by Landlord prior to the commencement of any work or the delivery of any materials therefor.

ARTICLE IX. Insurance

9.1 Landlord shall at all times during the Term of this Lease keep the Building insured against loss or damage by fire and against those perils included from time to time in the standard form of extended coverage insurance endorsement, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, wind storm, hail, explosion, vandalism, riot and civil commotion, damage from vehicles, and smoke damage, and such other coverage as may be deemed necessary by Landlord. 9.2 Tenant shall insure the contents of the Leased Premises owned by Tenant, for the benefit of Tenant, against lose or damage by fire, windstorm, or other casualty for such amount as Tenant may desire.

9.3 Tenant agrees to rely entirely upon its own property insurance for recovery with respect to any damage, loss, or injury to the property interests of Tenant or which may be exposed to damage, loss, or injury in connection therewith.

Subject to the first paragraph of this subsection, Tenant hereby releases Landlord, its officials, its officers,

employees, agents, and others acting on Landlord’s behalf, from all claims, and all liability or responsibility to Tenant, and to anyone claiming through or under Tenant, by way of subrogation or otherwise, for any loss of or damage to Tenant’s business or property caused by fire or other peril was caused in whole or in part by the negligence or other act or omission of Landlord or other party who is to be released by the terms hereof, or by anyone for whom such a party may be responsible.

Tenant further releases Landlord, it officials, officers, employees, agents and others acting on Landlord’s behalf,

from all claims, liability or responsibility to Landlord, or to anyone claiming through or under Landlord, by way of subrogation or otherwise, for any loss, damage or other detriment to Tenant resulting from deductible clauses, inadequacy of substantive coverage or limits, or any other matter causing an unsatisfactory insurance response or recovery under any policies of insurance, whether property insurance or liability insurance, maintained by Landlord or Tenant.

Tenant understands and agrees that it is solely responsible for determining whether the release and waiver under

this subsection could impair any of its rights under its insurance policies, and further that it is solely responsible for effecting revisions to such policies as may be necessary to permit such release and waiver.

With respect to liability arising out of Tenant’s performance under this Lease, all insurance required of Tenant hereunder shall respond on a primary (not excess or contributory) basis with respect to any similar insurance maintained by Landlord and/or any other party required to be included as an additional insured hereunder.

9.4. Tenant shall also, as Additional Rent hereunder and at Tenant’s sole cost and expense, but for the mutual benefit of Landlord and Tenant, as named insureds, maintain during the term of this Lease a commercial general liability policy with a limit of liability coverage of not less than $1,500,000.00 per occurrence , applying to liability for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage, and contractual liability (applying to this Lease) which total limits may be satisfied by the limits afforded by an umbrella liability policy (or policies); provided, that the coverage afforded under any such umbrella or excess liability policy is at least in all material respects as broad as that afforded by said underlying commercial general liability policy, and further, that Landlord is also included as a named or additional insured thereunder.

Such general liability policy and umbrella or excess liability policy (or policies) may provide aggregate limits for some or all of the coverage afforded thereunder, so long as such aggregate limits have not, as of the beginning of this

4.1B Page 8

Lease or at anytime during such term, been reduced to less than the required each occurrence limit stated above, and further, that the umbrella or excess liability policy provides coverage from the point that such aggregate limits in the underlying commercial general liability policy become reduced or exhausted. An umbrella or excess liability policy, which “drops down” to respond immediately over reduced underlying limits, or in place of exhausted underlying limits.

9.5 All policies of insurance required under this Lease shall be maintained with financially sound and reputable insurers licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. All such insurers must also be acceptable to Landlord, such acceptance by Landlord to not be unreasonably withheld. All such policies of insurance shall contain a provision requiring the insurer to provide Landlord’s Office of Loss Control with at least 15 day prior written notice of any cancellation, non-renewal, or adverse material change in coverage.

All policies of insurance required under this Lease shall be in form and content, and in all other respects,

satisfactory to Landlord. Tenant shall, at all times pertinent to its performance under this Lease, exercise every good faith effort to promptly remedy any unsatisfactory term or condition with respect to any required insurance.

9.6 At least 10 days prior to the commencement of this Lease, Tenant shall furnish to Landlord’s Office of

Loss Control, evidence that the insurance coverage required under this Lease will be in full force and effect at all times during the period of this Lease. Such evidence of insurance shall be on the form provided by Landlord to Tenant, or in the form of a standard Certificate of Insurance, or such other form as Landlord may, in its sole discretion, determine to accept as evidence of insurance. Any form so provided shall contain sufficient information to allow Landlord to determine whether there is compliance with these provisions. At the request of Landlord, Tenant shall, in addition to providing such evidence of insurance, promptly furnish Landlord’s Office of Loss Control with a complete copy of each insurance policy intended to provide coverage required hereunder.

9.7 At the request of Landlord, Tenant shall promptly furnish loss information concerning all liability claims

that are: (a) brought against Tenant (or any predecessor business entity) arising out of any projects undertaken by Tenant (or any predecessor business entity) within the three (3) years preceding the date of this Lease; and (b) brought against Tenant (or any other Insured under Tenant’s required policies, that may affect the amount of liability insurance available for benefit and protection of Landlord. Such loss information shall include such specifics and be in such form as Landlord may reasonably require.

9.8 It is expressly understood that Landlord does not in any way represent that the specified minimum limits

of liability or coverage, or policy forms, are sufficient or adequate to protect the interest or liabilities of Tenant. 9.9 Insurance terms not otherwise defined in this Lease shall be interpreted consistent with insurance industry

usage.

ARTICLE X. Quiet Enjoyment

10.1 Landlord represents and warrants that it is the lawful owner of the Leased Premises; that it has the full right and power to make the Lease; that if and so long as Tenant shall not be in default hereunder, Tenant shall quietly hold, occupy, and enjoy the Leased Premises during all of the Term. 10.2 Landlord shall allow Tenant to use Building address (5600 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443) for delivery of all mail and parcels, and shall provide mutually agreed upon, appropriate, and accessible place in Building for Tenant to retrieve and/or take delivery of such items.

ARTICLE XI. Destruction and Restoration

11.1 If the Building or any portion thereof is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, however or by whomever caused, Landlord shall repair, rebuild, and restore the same with due diligence and dispatch (subject to the approval

4.1B Page 9 of the holders of any mortgages on the Building) so that the Building will be restored to at least the same good order and

condition as existed prior to damage or destruction. If more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the Leased Premises is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, Landlord shall have the option, in its sole discretion, to decline to rebuild. If Landlord so declines, this Lease shall terminate as of the date of such damage or destruction. If Landlord elects to repair the Building, and if such damage in the reasonable opinion of Landlord renders the entire Leased Premises unfit for Tenant’s normal business purposes, and Tenant by reason thereof discontinues business in the Leased Premises, Base Rent and Additional Rent shall be abated for a period during which no part of the Leased Premises is fit for such business purposes and during which time Tenant discontinues business. If such damage renders only part of the Leased Premises unfit for Tenant’s normal business purposes, Base Rent shall be apportioned on a square foot of Leased Premises area basis and the proportion thereof applicable to each part of the Leased Premises upon which Tenant discontinues its business operations shall be abated for the period during which such part is not fit for Tenant’s normal business purposes and during which Tenant discontinues such business operations. 11.2 Tenant will repair and replace all improvements and betterments placed upon the Leased Premises by it, and such repair and replacement shall be made at its own expense and not at the expense of Landlord.

ARTICLE XII.

Assignment and Subletting Tenant shall not assign or sublease any of its rights under the Lease of any part of the Leased Premises without prior written consent from Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed, or conditioned by Landlord. No such assignment or subleasing shall in any event relieve Tenant from any of its obligations contained in the Lease, nor shall any assignment or transfer of the Lease be effective unless the assignee or transferee shall, at the time of such assignment or-transfer, assume in writing all the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Lease to be performed thereafter by Tenant and shall agree in writing to be bound thereby. Tenant agrees to pay on behalf of Landlord any and all costs of Landlord, including reasonable attorneys’ fees occasioned by such assignment or transfer.

ARTICLE XIII.

Defaults of Tenant 13.1 If during the Term Tenant shall default in fulfilling any of the covenants of the Lease (other than the covenants for the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent), Landlord shall give Tenant notice of any default or of the happening of any contingency referred to in this paragraph, and if at the expiration of twenty (20) days after the service of such notice the default or contingency upon which said notice was based shall continue to exist, or in the case of a default or contingency which cannot with due diligence be cured within a period of twenty (20) days, if Tenant fails to proceed promptly after the service of such notice and with all due diligence to cure the same and thereafter to prosecute the curing of such default with all due diligence, Landlord, at its option, may terminate the Lease, and upon such termination, Tenant will quit and surrender the Leased Premises to Landlord, but Tenant shall remain liable as hereinafter provided. 13.2 If Tenant shall default in the payment of the Base Rent or Additional Rent expressly reserved hereunder, or any part of the same, and such default shall continue for ten (10) days after notice thereof by Landlord, or if the Lease shall expire as provided in Paragraph 13.1 of this Article, Landlord or Landlord’s agents and servants may immediately or at any time thereafter re-enter the Leased Premises and remove all persons and any or all property therefrom, either by summary dispossession proceedings or by any suitable action or proceedings at law or by force or otherwise and repossess and enjoy said Leased Premises, together with all additions, alterations and improvements, without re-entry and repossession working forfeiture or waiver of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by Tenant during the Term hereof. Upon the expiration of the Term of the Lease by reason of any of the events described in Paragraph 13.1, or in the event of termination of the Lease by summary dispossession proceedings or under any provision of law now or hereafter in force by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Lease on the part of Tenant (except where such breach or default is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be justified because of Landlord’s acts or omissions), or upon Landlord recovering possession of the Leased Premises in the manner or in any of the circumstances whatsoever, whether with or without legal proceedings, by reason of or based upon or arising out of a default under or a breach of the Lease on the part of Tenant, Landlord may, at its option, at any time and from time to time, relet the Leased Premises, or any part thereof,

4.1B Page 10 for the account of Tenant or otherwise, and receive and collect the rents therefor, applying the same first to the payment of

such expenses as Landlord may have incurred in recovering possession of the Leased Premises, including legal expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and for putting the same into good order or condition or preparing or altering the same for re-rental and all other reasonable expenses, commissions, and charges paid, assumed, or incurred by Landlord in reletting the Leased Premises and then to the fulfillment of the covenants of Tenant hereunder. Any such reletting herein provided for may be for the remainder of the Term of the Lease as originally granted or for a longer or shorter period. In any such case or whether or not the Leased Premises, or any part thereof, is relet, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the Base Rent and the Additional Rent required to be paid by Tenant up to the time of such termination of the Lease, as the case may be, and thereafter, Tenant covenants and agrees, if required by Landlord, to pay to Landlord until the end of the Term of the Lease the equivalent of the amount of all the Base Rent and Additional Rent reserved herein less the net proceeds of reletting, if any. Landlord shall have the election, in place and stead of holding Tenant so liable, forthwith to recover against Tenant, as damages for loss of the bargain and not as penalty, an aggregate sum which at the time of such termination of the Lease for such recovery of possession of the Leased Premises by Landlord, as the case may be, represents the then present worth of the excess, if any, of the aggregate of the Base Rent and Additional Rent payable by Tenant hereunder that would have accrued for the balance of the Term, over the aggregate rental value of the Leased Premises for the balance of such Term. 13.3 The specified remedies to which Landlord may resort under the terms of the Lease are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other remedies or means of redress to which Landlord may be lawfully entitled in case of any breach or threatened breach by Tenant of any provision of the Lease. The failure of Landlord to insist in any one or more cases upon the strict performance of any of the covenants of the Lease or to exercise any option herein contained shall not be construed as a waiver or a relinquishment for the future of such covenant or option. A receipt by Landlord of Base Rent or Additional Rent, with knowledge of breach of any covenant hereof (other than the payment of Base Rent or Additional Rent) shall not be deemed a waiver of such breach, and no waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Lease shall be deemed to have been made unless expressed in writing and signed by Landlord. In addition to other remedies provided in this Lease, Landlord shall be entitled to the restraint by injunction for the violation or attempted or threatened violation of the covenants, conditions, or provisions of the Lease.

ARTICLE XIV. Attorneys’ Fees

If it is necessary for Landlord to retain the services of an attorney at law to enforce any of the terms, covenants, or provisions hereof, or to collect any sums due hereunder, Tenant shall pay to Landlord upon demand, as Additional Rent hereunder, the reasonable cost of such services.

ARTICLE XV. Holding Over

In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, if Tenant should continue to occupy the Leased Premises following the expiration of the Term of the Lease, with or without the extension of the Lease, Tenant shall so remain as a tenant from month to month and all provisions of the Lease applicable to such tenancy shall remain in full force and effect. During such tenancy, the same Base Rent and the same terms and conditions as prevailed during the last month of the Term demised shall prevail. In any such event, Tenant shall be liable to Landlord for damages which Landlord may incur as a result of such holding over, including but not limited to damages incurred because of loss of a prospective successor tenant. If Tenant is a holdover tenant and if Tenant continues to occupy the Leased Premises following the termination of such holdover (by a proper notice as to such month-to-month tenancy), then the foregoing provisions of this Article shall apply in the same manner as when Tenant continued in occupancy following the expiration of the Term of the Lease.

ARTICLE XVI. Use of Leased Premises

The Leased Premises shall be used only for the operation of an historical society. Such operation may include, but is not limited to, general office operations, archive and artifact storage, public displays and showings, historical research and

4.1B Page 11 preservation, fundraising and promotional campaigns. Tenant shall not use or occupy the Leased Premises or knowingly permit the Leased Premises to be used or occupied contrary to any statute, rule, order, ordinance, requirement, or regulation

applicable thereto or in any manner which would violate any certificate of occupancy affecting the same, or which would cause structural injury to the Leased Premises or cause the value or usefulness of the Leased Premises or any part thereof to substantially diminish (reasonable wear and tear excepted) or which would constitute a public or private nuisance or waste. Tenant shall promptly upon discovery of any such use, take all necessary steps to compel the discontinuance of such use.

ARTICLE XVII. Permits

Tenant shall maintain in force and effect all permits, licenses, and similar authorizations to use the Leased Premises for the aforesaid purposes required by any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the use thereof. Tenant’s failure to maintain such permits, licenses, and similar authorizations shall not relieve Tenant from the performance of its obligations and covenants hereunder (except obligations and covenants as may be prohibited by law), nor from the obligations to pay Base Rent or Additional Rent, as set forth herein. Tenant shall, at Landlord’s request, in its capacity as Tenant, and not in its capacity as owner of the land underlying the Building, join with Landlord in executing, acknowledging, and delivering any and all petitions, consents, subordinations, plats, or easement deeds that may be required for the installation of any utilities, public improvements, roads, water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage facilities, subdivision, rezoning, special use, platting, or other similar development of the Leased Premises, which do not affect Tenant’s use of the Leased Premises during the Term of the Lease.

ARTICLE XVIII. Compliance with Law

Tenant, at its sole expense, shall promptly comply with all laws, ordinances, and requirements of federal, state, county, and municipal authorities relating to Tenant’s use and occupation of the Leased Premises, and with any lawful order or direction of any public officer relating to Tenant’s use and occupation of the Leased Premises during the Term of the Lease. Nothing herein contained, however, shall prohibit Tenant from appealing from or contesting the validity or legality of such laws, ordinances, requirements, orders, or directions and, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Article, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default hereunder so long as Tenant diligently prosecutes such appeal or contest.

ARTICLE XIX. Access to Premises

19.1 Tenant shall permit Landlord and the authorized representatives of Landlord to enter the Leased Premises at all times during usual business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same and making any necessary repairs to comply with any laws, ordinances rules, regulations, or requirements of any public authority. Nothing herein shall imply any duty upon the part of Landlord to do any such work which, under any provision of the Lease, Tenant may be required to perform, and the performance thereof by Landlord shall not constitute a waiver of Tenant’s default in failing to perform the same. Landlord may, during the progress of any work in the Leased Premises, reasonably keep and store upon the Leased Premises all necessary materials, tools, and equipment. Landlord shall not in any event be liable for inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of business, or other damage to Tenant by reason of making repairs or the performance of any work in the Leased Premises, or on account of bringing materials, supplies, and equipment onto or through the Leased Premises during the course thereof, and the obligations of Tenant under the Lease shall not hereby be affected in any manner whatsoever. Landlord shall, however, in connection with the doing of any such work cause as little inconvenience, annoyance, disturbance, loss of business, or other damage to Tenant as may reasonably be possible in the circumstances.

4.1B Page 12 19.2 Tenant shall have access to its offices at any time. The public shall have access to Tenant’s offices during all hours of Building operation, at minimum from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily.

ARTICLE XX. Indemnity

20.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Tenant agrees to indemnify Landlord, its officers, employees,

agents, and others acting on its behalf, to hold them harmless, and to defend and protect them, from and against any and all loss, damage, liability, cost and expense (specifically including attorney’s fees and other costs and expenses of defense), of any sort whatsoever, based upon, resulting from, or otherwise arising in connection with any actions, claims or proceedings (from any source whatsoever) brought, or any loss, damage or injury of any type whatsoever sustained, by reason of any act or omission of Tenant, its officers, employees or agents, or any other persons or entities for whose acts or omissions Tenant is legally responsible, in the performance of any of Tenant’s obligations (whether expressed or implied) under this Lease.

20.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Lease, Landlord does not waive any statutory limited

immunity from municipal tort liability available to it under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or as otherwise provided. Such statutory limited immunity shall apply whether an action, claim, demand, or lawsuit is initiated by Tenant or by any third party. In no event shall Tenant assert or rely upon any such statutory limited immunity of Landlord to avoid liability for any act for which Tenant would otherwise be legally responsible.

ARTICLE XXI.

Estoppel Certificate Tenant shall, at any time and from time to time, upon not less than twenty (20) days’ prior notice by Landlord, execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Landlord a statement in writing certifying that the Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there shall have been modifications that the Lease is in full force and effect as modified and stating the modifications) and the dates to which the Base Rent and Additional Rent have been paid in advance, if any, and stating whether or not (to the best knowledge of Tenant) Landlord is in default in the performance of any covenant, agreement, or condition contained in the Lease and, if so, specifying each such default of which Tenant may have knowledge, it being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant to this Article shall be in a form approved by and may be relied upon by any prospective assignee of Landlord’s interest in the Lease or any mortgagee of the Leased Premises or any assignee of any mortgage upon the Leased Premises.

ARTICLE XXII. Subordination

The Lease shall, at Landlord’s election, be subject and subordinate to the terms and conditions of all mortgages which may now or hereafter encumber the Leased Promises and to all renewals, modifications, consolidations, replacements, and extensions of such mortgages. In confirmation of such subordination, Tenant shall promptly execute any certificate of subordination or other such documents which Landlord or its mortgagees may request.

4.1B Page 13

ARTICLE XXIII. Signs

Upon prior written approval by Landlord of design and construction, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Tenant may erect such signs upon the Leased Premises as it may deem desirable, as long as said signs do not exceed in weight the safe carrying capacity of any bearing structure, or violate the laws of the state or ordinances of the municipality in which the Leased Premises is situated.

ARTICLE XXIV.

Termination of Previous Lease, Entire Agreement The previous lease agreement between the City of Brooklyn Park and the Brooklyn Historical Society for the Leased Premises that commenced on February 27, 2012, is hereby terminated and is no longer in force or effect. This Lease contains the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements, or conditions, oral or otherwise, of any kind whatsoever. Any agreement hereafter made shall be ineffective to change, modify, discharge, or effect an abandonment of the Lease in whole or in part unless such agreement is in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of the change, modification, discharge, or abandonment in sought.

ARTICLE XXV. Release of Lessor

If Landlord sells or otherwise transfers all of its interest in the Leased Premises, Landlord shall, without further action by any party, be released and discharged from any further obligation or duty under the Lease, and no claim or demand upon Landlord shall thereafter be made by Tenant arising out of any such prospective obligation or duty of Landlord hereunder. Upon request by Landlord, Tenant shall execute an attornment agreement with Landlord’s transferee in form satisfactory to such transferee.

ARTICLE XXVI. Severability

If any term, condition, or provision of the Lease or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder thereof and the application of such terms, provisions, and conditions to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and the Lease and all the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and to be complied with to the full extent permitted by law.

ARTICLE XXVII. Notices

Any notice or election herein requested or permitted to be given or served by either party hereto upon the other, shall be deemed given or served in accordance with the provisions of the Lease if delivered to either party hereto and receipt is obtained therefor, or if mailed by United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed to such other party at the address hereinafter specified. Unless and until changed by notice as herein provided, notices and communications shall be addressed as follows: If to Landlord: City of Brooklyn Park 5600 85th Avenue North

Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Attn: Director, Recreation and Parks

4.1B Page 14

If to Tenant: Brooklyn Historical Society 5600 85th Avenue North

Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Attn: President

Each such mailed notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon the party to which addressed, on the date the same is deposited in the United States registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, properly addressed in the manner above provided. Each such delivered notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given to, or served upon, the party to whom delivered, upon delivery thereof in the manner above provided. Either party may change the address to which mailed notice is to be sent to it by giving to the other party hereto not less than thirty (30) days’ advance written notice thereof. All payments of Base Rent or other amounts due and owing to Landlord under this Lease hereunder shall be made to Landlord at the address above designated, or as may be hereafter designated.

ARTICLE XXVIII.

Headings The headings incorporated in the Lease are for convenience in reference only and are not a part of the Lease and do not in any way limit or add to the terms and provisions hereof.

ARTICLE XXIX Binding Effect

All of the covenants, conditions, and agreements herein contained shall extend to, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.

[Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]

4.1B Page 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amended and Restated Lease Agreement the day and year first above written. LANDLORD:

CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its Mayor By: ____________________________________ Its City Manager TENANT: BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: Darryl G. Sannes Its President

This instrument was drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MJM) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-337-9213 Attorney for Landlord 479101v3

4.1B Page 16

Exhibit A Leased Premises




Originating Department:

Operations and Maintenance Engineering Services Division

Resolution: X

Prepared By:

Craig Runnakko, P.E., Construction Engineer

Ordinance: N/A Attachments: 3

Presented By: Jesse Struve, P.E., City Engineer

Item: Accept Bids and Award Contract for MSA Mill and Overlay, CIP 4002-16

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _______________, SECOND _________________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016-_____ ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO HARDRIVES, INC. OF ROGERS, MN IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,042,636.50 FOR THE 2016 MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) MILL AND OVERLAY, CIP 4002-16. Overview: Project No. 4002-16 is a rehabilitation project (mill and overlay) along Jefferson Highway from TH610 to 700 feet south of 109th Avenue North, Zane Avenue between 63rd Avenue North and 65th Avenue North and on Zane Avenue between 69th Avenue North (County State Aid Highway 130) and 73rd Avenue North. The project will include curb and gutter replacement, pedestrian curb ramp upgrades (to meet current ADA standards) water system and storm sewer rehabilitation. Jefferson Highway and Zane Avenue are both part of the city’s municipal state aid (MSA) system. The City of Brooklyn Park currently has a maintenance agreement with the City of Maple Grove that outlines the maintenance responsibilities for Jefferson Highway. As stated in this agreement, the City of Brooklyn Park is responsible for maintaining the segment of Jefferson Highway between 93rd Avenue North and 101st Avenue North and Maple Grove is responsible for the segment of Jefferson Highway south of the City of Osseo. The City of Brooklyn Park invoices the City of Maple Grove for half (50%) of the maintenance costs for our maintenance segment. Zane Avenue between 69th Avenue North and 73rd Avenue North will also have a sanitary sewer relining project, CIP 3001-16S, occur before the MSA project on this segment. We are planning to have a completion date of July 1, 2016, for the sanitary sewer relining project so that work on the MSA project can be completed prior to the start of the school year. Bids were opened on April 28, 2016, with four bids received. Bids ranged from $1,042,636.50 to a high of $1,199,820.69. Hardrives, Inc. has worked for the city on several projects in the past. City staff recommends the City Council award the contract to Hardrives, Inc. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A

4.2 Page 2 Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: The project is included in the adopted 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for a scheduled 2016 completion as Project No. 4002-16 with an estimated cost of $1,769,000. In accordance with City policies, the City is proposing to pay for the project with MSA funds, Water Utility Funds, and funds from Maple Grove per the Construction Cooperative Agreement. Attachments: 4.2A RESOLUTION 4.2B LOCATION MAP – 1 4.2C LOCATION MAP – 2


RESOLUTION #2016-

RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO HARDRIVES, INC. OF ROGERS, MN

FOR THE 2016 MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) MILL AND OVERLAY, CIP 4002-16 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvements, to wit: CIP NO. 4002-16 – 2016 MUNICIPAL STATE AID (MSA) MILL AND OVERLAY bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: BIDDER TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID HARDRIVES, INC. $1,042,636.50 NORTH VALLEY, INC. $1,056,509.96 C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. $1,170,084.14 PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY $1,199,820.69 Engineer’s Estimate $1,180,002.45 and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends award of contract to Hardrives, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park.

1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Hardrives, Inc. of Rogers, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Park for the improvements aforesaid according to the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the Clerk.

4.2B LOCATION MAP – 1 Page 4

4.2C LOCATION MAP – 2 Page 5


Request for Council Action Agenda Item: 4.3




Resolution: X

Prepared By: Jody Yungers

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

7

Presented By: Jody Yungers

Item:

Approve 2015 Deer Hunt Results and Authorize 2016 Deer Management Program and the Agreement with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to Conduct the 2016 Hunt

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐_____ TO ACCEPT THE 2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS, AUTHORIZE THE 2016 DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE METRO BOWHUNTERS RESOURCE BASE TO CONDUCT THE 2016 HUNT. MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐_____ TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEND A LETTER FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT TO CONSIDER A DEER HUNT WITHIN RECOMMENDED AREAS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. Overview: The City Council approved a Deer Management Plan in 2011. The Deer Management Plan identifies the number of deer within a range that the natural habitat can support effectively in the Brooklyn Park community. The plan recommends 15 to 20 deer per square mile, which translates to 45 to 60 deer in the northern portion of the city, 15 to 20 deer along the Mississippi River south of Highway 610, and 15 to 20 in the Palmer Lake Nature Area. Over the last five years, the City Council, in support of this plan, has approved a Deer Management Program consisting of a controlled archery deer hunt. The Recreation and Parks Department works in partnership with Three Rivers Park District and a consortium of seven suburban communities to conduct an annual aerial survey. This survey provides a snap shot of the deer population within the Brooklyn Park community (see attached January 2016 Ariel Survey Results). This survey is used to identify the number of targeted deer to be removed for a sustainable population in the City’s urban landscape. In the winter of 2016, the aerial survey found that the herd in Brooklyn Park had decreased. A total of 137 total deer was less than the 170 counted in the winter of 2014 (there was no flyover survey done in 2015 due to lack of snow).

4.3 Page 2 Historically the City has contracted with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the controlled deer hunt. The MBRB coordinates and manages the hunter’s application process, which includes a criminal background check. The controlled deer hunt occurs in the fall of each year. Attached is a copy of the five‐year summary which notes the number of deer culled from the herd, of which 70 were culled in 2011, 63 in 2012, 48 in 2013, 32 in 2014, and 29 in 2015. The reduction in the number of deer culled in the 2015 hunt can be partially attributed to three things: 1) antlerless deer in previous years that were removed from the City; 2) the high temperatures of the 2nd and 3rd week of hunt resulted in little deer movement; 3) the 4th hunt period had heavy rains resulting in little deer movement. Recommended changes for 2016 Controlled Deer Hunt – In the past, nine hunt areas were utilized for the controlled hunt as identified in the attached Hunt Area Maps. Staff is recommending the following changes for the 2016 hunt: 1) Elimination of Zone #9 (Jewell Park) due to the size of hunt area and proximity to neighbors within the

park; 2) Elimination of Zone #2 (Russ Creek Trail at 169) due to construction and low count; and 3) Reducing the number of times and days of the hunt in Coon Rapids Dam due to reduced deer numbers in

hunt area. We anticipate that the Izaak Walton League, Breckenridge Chapter, will once again allow the hunt to use the island they own on the Mississippi River. The other four areas are along the Rush Creek Regional Trail at: Northwoods Park, the Environmental Nature Area, West Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park, and the Palmer Lake Nature Area. These four areas are owned property by either the City or Three Rivers Park District. One public safety benefit to controlling the deer population in an urban/suburban area is the reduction of deer related car accidents. Attached is a chart graphing the deer/vehicle accidents in Brooklyn Park since implementation of the controlled deer hunts since 2011. In 2015, there was an increase in deer related incidents (70), in comparison to 2014 with 63 accidents; in 2013, 66 accidents, as compared to 84 in 2012; and 105 in 2011. This increase in 2015 may be due to the reduction in the culling of deer herd due to bad weather in 2015. The MBRB Board of Directors has prepared recommendations that include the encouragement to the City of Brooklyn Center to allow for a hunt in the area between Palmer Lake Park in Brooklyn Center and Brookdale Park in Brooklyn Park, where no hunting is currently allowed. This area continues to have a high number of deer taken; however, deer are only harvested when passing through the hunt area in Brookdale Park. The deer that do not pass through continue to breed and the area population stays steady and has not dropped. Staff is recommending that the city continue to work in partnership with Three Rivers Park District to conduct the annual flyover and based on aerial survey results, and authorize the Director of Recreation and Parks to move forward with a contract with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the 2016 hunt as the city has done in the previous four years.

4.3 Page 3 Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider:

The 2015 survey results indicate a larger number of deer sustainable for the size of the habitat; a controlled archery hunt will to be recommended again for the 2016 Deer Management Program.

Should the City Council approve the agreement with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the 2016 hunt?

Should the City Council send a letter of encouragement to the City of Brooklyn Center to allow for a hunt in the area between Palmer Lake Park in Brooklyn Center and Brookdale Park in Brooklyn Park, where no hunting is currently allowed?


The only cost incurred is for warning signs that mark the hunt areas for the general public that use those areas. Should an additional hunt area be identified, more signs will be needed to warn residents of the hunt period.

The contractor, MBRB, does not charge for their services. There is a charge for certificates of insurance that the City provides to MBRB in the event they obtain access to private property.

Attachments: 4.3A RESOLUTION – TO ACCEPT 2015 RESULTS AND AUTHORIZE 2016 HUNT 4.3B RESOLUTION – TO AUTHORIZE LETTER 4.3C 2011‐2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS 4.3D 2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS 4.3E AERIAL DEER COUNTS FROM 2016 4.3F 2015‐2016 DEER/VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORT 4.3G DEER HUNT ZONES

4.3A RESOLUTION – TO ACCEPT 2015 RESULTS AND AUTHORIZE 2016 HUNT Page 4

RESOLUTION #2016-

RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE 2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS, AUTHORIZE THE 2016 DEER MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM, AND APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE METRO BOWHUNTERS RESOURCE BASE TO CONDUCT THE 2016 HUNT

WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Deer Management Plan in 2011; and

WHEREAS, over the last five years, the City Council, in support of this plan, has approved a Deer

Management Program consisting of a controlled archery deer hunt; and

WHEREAS, the Recreation and Parks Department works in partnership with Three Rivers Park District and a consortium of seven suburban communities to conduct an annual aerial survey; and

WHEREAS, historically the City has contracted with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the controlled deer hunt; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends changes for the 2016 Controlled Deer Hunt to include: 1) Elimination Zone #9 (Jewell Park), due to the size of hunt area and proximity to

neighbors within the park; 2) Elimination of Zone #2 (Russ Creek Trail at 169) due to construction and low count; 3) Reducing the number of times and days of the hunt in Coon Rapids Dam due to reduced

deer numbers in hunt area; and

WHEREAS, the MBRB Board of Directors has prepared recommendations that include the encouragement to the City of Brooklyn Center to allow for a hunt in the area between Palmer Lake Park in Brooklyn Center, and Brookdale Park in Brooklyn Park, where no hunting is currently allowed; and

WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City continue to work in partnership with Three Rivers Park District to conduct the annual flyover, and based on aerial survey results, authorize the Director of Recreation and Parks to move forward with a contract with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the 2016 hunt, as the city has done in the previous four years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to accept the 2015 deer hunt results; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to authorize the 2016 Deer Management Program and approve the agreement with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base to conduct the 2016 hunt.

4.3B RESOLUTION – TO AUTHORIZE LETTER Page 5

RESOLUTION #2016-

RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SEND A LETTER FOR CONSIDERATION TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO WORK IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT TO CONSIDER A DEER HUNT

WITHIN RECOMMENDED AREAS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER

WHEREAS, the City Council approved a Deer Management Plan in 2011; and

WHEREAS, over the last five years the City Council, in support of this plan, has approved a Deer Management Program consisting of a controlled archery deer hunt; and

WHEREAS, the Recreation and Parks Department works in partnership with Three Rivers Park District and a consortium of seven suburban communities to conduct an annual aerial survey; and

WHEREAS, historically the City has contracted with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the controlled deer hunt; and

WHEREAS, the MBRB Board of Directors has prepared recommendations that include the encouragement to the City of Brooklyn Center to allow for a hunt in the area between Palmer Lake Park in Brooklyn Center, and Brookdale Park in Brooklyn Park, where no hunting is currently allowed; and

WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the City continue to work in partnership with Three Rivers Park District to conduct the annual flyover and based on aerial survey results, authorize the Director of Recreation and Parks to move forward with a contract with the Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) to conduct the 2016 hunt, as the city has done in the previous four years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to authorize staff to send a letter for consideration to the City of Brooklyn Center to work in partnership with Three Rivers Park District to consider a deer hunt within recommended areas of the City of Brooklyn Center.

4.3C 2011-2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS Page 6

2011-2015 BROOKLYN PARK DEER REMOVAL HUNT RESULTS

4.3D 2015 DEER HUNT RESULTS Page 7

2015 BROOKLYN PARK DEER REMOVAL HUNT RESULTS

4.3E AERIAL DEER COUNTS FROM 2016 Page 8

4.3F 2015-2016 DEER/VEHICLE INCIDENT REPORT Page 9

4.3G DEER HUNT ZONES Page 10

4.3G Page 11

4.3G Page 12

4.3G Page 13

4.3G Page 14

4.3G Page 15

4.3G Page 16

4.3G Page 17

4.3G Page 18





Operations and Maintenance – Engineering Division

Resolution: X

Prepared By:

Jeff Holstein, City Transportation Engineer


6

Presented By: Jesse Struve, City Engineer

Item:

Approve the Transfer of Property to Hennepin County for the TH 169 / CSAH 30 Interchange Project, CIP 404013

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _____________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016-_____ APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE TH 169 / CSAH 30 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, CIP 404013. Overview: The City of Brooklyn Park entered into a right of way acquisition agreement (PW 41-04-10) with Hennepin County in March of 2011 as part of the TH 169 / CSAH 30 Interchange Project. The City and Hennepin County were responsible for acquiring the right of way for the project, with the City acting as the lead agency and billing the County half of the cost. The agreement states the City would convey the property within the interchange area necessary for CSAH 30 right of way to Hennepin County at the conclusion of the project. The project was completed in the fall of 2013 and the City conveyed the parcels MnDOT wanted to the State of Minnesota (as documented in Agreement No. 01224) at the January 4, 2016 Council meeting. The City needs to convey the parcels that Hennepin County needs for CSAH 30 right of way to the County. The County prepared quit claim deeds for three parcels that the City needs to execute in order to convey the parcels to Hennepin County. City staff has reviewed these documents and found them to be appropriate. Based on the above, staff recommends that the City Council approve the transfer of property to Hennepin County for the TH 169 / CSAH 30 Interchange Project. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: 4.4A RESOLUTION 4.4B QUITCLAIM DEED – PARCEL A 4.4C QUITCLAIM DEED – PARCEL B 4.4D QUITCLAIM DEED – PARCEL C 4.4E VICINITY MAP 4.4F LOCATION MAP


RESOLUTION #2016-

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO HENNEPIN COUNTY

FOR THE TH 169 / CSAH 30 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, CIP 404013 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park recently worked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Hennepin County to upgrade the former at-grade traffic signal at the TH 169 / CSAH 30 intersection to a grade separated interchange; and WHEREAS, the City executed Agreement PW 41-04-10 with Hennepin County that documents the responsibilities for right of way acquisition by the City and County, of which the City was the lead agency; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the project, all properties necessary for County State Aid Highway 30 (CSAH 30) right of way were to be conveyed to Hennepin County at no cost to the County; and WHEREAS, the project was completed in the fall of 2013 and Hennepin County has recently provided the City with quitclaim deeds to convey three parcels to Hennepin County for CSAH 30 right of way purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed these documents and found them to be acceptable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park.

1. The City of Brooklyn Park approves the transfer of property to Hennepin County for the TH 169 / CSAH 30 Interchange Project, CIP 404013.

2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Quitclaim Deeds on

behalf of the City of Brooklyn Park.

3. The City Clerk is directed to forward (2) certified copies of this resolution to Mr. Eric Drager, Hennepin County Land Acquisition Manager, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340-5421.

4.4B QUITCLAIM DEED-PARCEL A Page 3

4.4C QUITCLAIM DEED-PARCEL B Page 6

4.4D QUITCLAIM DEED-PARCEL C Page 9

4.4E VVICINITY MAPPage 12

P 2

4.4F LOCATIO

N M

AP Page 13



Meeting Date: April 25, 2016



Resolution: N/A


Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

3

Presented By: Devin Montero, City Clerk

Item: Approval of Minutes

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _____________, SECOND _____________, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN PARK SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2016, AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY CLERK. MOTION _____________, SECOND _____________, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 25, 2016, AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY CLERK. MOTION _____________, SECOND _____________, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN PARK BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING OF APRIL 25, 2016, AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY CLERK. Overview: N/A Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: 4.4A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, JANUARY 26, 2016 4.5B CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES, APRIL 25, 2016 4.5C BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING MINUTES, APRIL 25, 2016

SPECIAL BROOKLYN PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, January 26, 2016 Steve Lampi Room 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Pro Tem Gates PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Rich Gates; Council Members John Jordan, Terry Parks, Peter Crema, Bob Mata and Mike Trepanier; City Manager Jay Stroebel; Community Development Director Kim Berggren; Recreation and Parks Director Jody Yungers; City Engineer Jesse Struve; and City Clerk Devin Montero. ABSENT: Mayor Jeffrey Lunde (excused)

1. Signature Area Task Force Update City Manager Stroebel stated Council would be provided with an update on signature event work. He stated that Council Member Jordan, Brian Rogers of the community and Recreation and Parks Director Yungers had been leading the work. He introduced Barry Long, UDA, who was also working with the Station Area Planning with the light rail. Mr. Long stated he had spent most of the day during the Brooklyn Park Signature Event Area Task Force Planning Workshop working with stakeholders gathering ideas around the signature event park. He stated he had gotten good input, had a concept design, would share the ideas with the Council to gather their input and then talk about the next steps. Council Member Jordan stated the staff met this morning with Mr. Long and talked about the technical aspect on what the Task Force had been working on and gave their input. He stated they met with the County, Met Council and Three Rivers Park District and got their input, their ideas and buy in. He stated it was a great meeting and came away incredibly encouraged by how they were discussing this and their plan. He stated the Task Force met today and talked through the concepts, what was important and put it on paper. They came up with an early concept and thought it accomplished the goals the Task Force had as well as the goals that the Council charged them as a Task Force. Mr. Long stated he was at the workshop to help the Task Force and what they were trying to do was marry the great ideas they had to the identified site. He stated there were some hurdles in doing that and that was what they tried to do today during the workshop so the Task Force could move on. He gave a brief overview and went over the concepts that the Task Force came up with:

The experts with the Oak Grove Station Area plan stated that park space was going to be diminished and would be over 20 acres as part of Oak Grove. Target reiterated they were still committed to building the northern campus and going to start on the main

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 2 streets. The the next thing Target focused on would be coming to the city in the coming months with ideas as soon as the piece of infrastructure was set. They saw another large corporate campus use and whatever was not taken up by the mixed use, some other areas were undefined, had the park and the Operation and Maintenance facility.

The vision from the boulevard to the Oak Grove station would be wrapped by mixed use and still in the plan everyone was committed to. From the station to the park would be able to get off the light rail, walk off the multiuse path and directly into the park. There were multiuse paths throughout the Station Area plan. The property was within a half mile of the station which was a ten minute walk and people would walk that on a regular basis.

The Three Rivers District said they had an expectation that people would come on the light rail, get off, take their bike and ride on the Rush Creek Regional Trail. The user counts on that trail would be 300,000 users a year, 80% were on bikes and the other 20% were pedestrians, joggers, etc. By the time they got up to the trail head, they had access to 120 miles of trail and Three Rivers Park District was excited about it.

The transit garage would be on the block adjacent to the boulevard and didn’t know exactly how the garage would be positioned.

On day one the extension of West Broadway Avenue would be built and all the way up to the grand boulevard would be stop lights. Oak Grove Parkway would go north and continue to the west over to 101st Avenue until the future interchange was built and that would all be connected together.

The local streets and city streets would be built around the park and rides sites. The discussion with Target, by the time transit came on line the transit line would be built over in the Operations and Maintenance facility and would be constructed on day one. There were 20.6 acres that was left over and thought the Operations and Maintenance Facility was exactly the size it was going to be.

The Task Force had asked what it would take at getting the park site up to 25 acres. Adding 4.4 acres to the south and showed what the configuration would look like. There was no access today across the tail track all though the idea was shown to the BPO, was chilly at first but were coming around and they might need access there.

Council Member Crema asked what the approximate value of the additional 4.4 acres was. He asked if the city could do a swap with Target Corporation. Mr. Long stated it was Target’s property and they had in their development agreement with a city requirement to build a 20 acre park and was not sure how it was worded and was not the 20 acres shown. Recreation and Parks Director Yungers stated the current property where the maintenance facility was, was part of the 33 acres and they were taking approximately 13 to 14 acres that would have to be either purchased or land exchanged. She stated Target owed the city some

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 3 representation of that 20 acres park for open space land. Mr. Long stated they also looked at going east and what that 4.4 acres would look like. He stated Target started to build the ring road but the idea was to have a loop that came all the way around and that would be the main street and connect everything together. He stated that was the way to get to the park, from the ring road. He stated there was a plan to put a light at either end as warranted. He stated they thought the best way in was off the ring road and the ring road also connected to Xylon and it had a multipurpose path along one side and the big streets had multipurpose paths on them too. Council Member Mata asked about the parking. Mr. Long stated there was a creative solution for parking. He stated if they took the whole area down to the ring road, it was about 14 acres and when the platting of it was finalized, they would find out exactly what it was. He stated that Target was excited about it because it got them three quarters of the way of their obligations. He stated they saw a bigger park there as an amenity but maybe a way to begin to address the development agreement with the city. Council Member Crema stated if Target had to give a 20 acre park and it gave 14 acres, that left six acres and was a small park. He asked if it made sense to give 14 acres and throw in some cash and relieve them of the other six acres. City Manager Stroebel stated Target also talked about putting in a park space as part of their main street development. Mr. Long stated they had about a three quarter acre to acre park but was not sure if they would categorize it as a park. He stated they wanted a gathering space for their team members to do small scale events and actually seen bigger events going there and had been in their master plan for a while but was not like what the city was planning. Council Member Trepanier asked what the total would be for the park. Mr. Long stated it was 34 to 35 acres and was a nice park. He continued with his overview:

The Task Force looked at access and constraints and talked to the County about the drawing shown today. He stated they liked to see a 600 foot offset from Oak Grove Parkway or West Broadway, two access points, so there wasn’t stacking. He stated they thought it was a little conservative but the consensus they came at today was to have one main entrance off the ring road.

The Task Force was looking at secondary access off of Oak Grove Parkway and liked at

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 4 least a right in/right out entrance and the water tower that was being proposed would need access but would require a control arm at the light rail.

The County felt they would get at least a right in/right out at the top but they would not use it at the main entrance at West Broadway. He stated there were three potential points of access to the property because they started the day with one. It was an important issue for the Council because those things were going through design and if they were going to add crossing points or curb cuts, they had to get them in sooner rather than later.

The SWOT analysis developed by the Task Force got to the essence of the park and they also developed guiding principles. The wow factor was number one on the rankings within the Task Force. He stated that one of the homework assignments for the committee was to go back and refine the guiding principles and take them to the next level of detail.

The Task Force also did a great job looking last fall at park precedence in the region and collected images of things that resonated with them, such as the stage, water feature, different types of pavilions and interesting things happening within the park.

The Task Force looked at other things which were under design, conceptual ideas, gardens, water features and where they actually attracted kids to play and they incorporated those ideas in the design as early thoughts for the park.

The Task Force looked at Maggie Daly Park in Chicago, Illinois which had some newer venues like a skating rink, climbing wall, stump climbing feature up through a garden, and a tot lot. All of them were distinctive and one of the things the Task Force wanted to do was make the proposed park venue distinctive and unique to the city.

The Task Force looked at Nicolette Commons in Burnsville and it had a lot of nice tag tile things like the frog squirting water or the stone which to wade in with little shooting water jets and beautifully designed.

The Task Force talked about the amphitheater built by the City of Nashville, which opened last summer. The city looked at underground parking initially but, at the end of the day it was too expensive and didn’t put any parking in for the amphitheater. It was a 6500 seat amphitheater and on the river adjacent to the honky tonks. The other thing was on amplified sound and the Task Force made recommendations to hire an acoustic consultant to come in to get briefed on how sound was going to behave with the pavilions and potentially a stage.

The event lawns worked well for pop up events and sloping worked better for viewing. The Nashville one was managed by Live Nation and built by the city, became a major concert venue.

The Task Force talked about the integration of art and a place where there was a photo opportunity. He showed an example of a statute where it was the place to get pictures taken with the downtown in the distance.

The Task Force looked at a park that Council Member Jordan visited which was Stinton Park in Omaha, Nebraska. It was an office campus district very similar to what Oak

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 5 Grove was and had a nice event park. He showed pictures of a concert going on with a couple thousand people. It had been successful and many people were at the park all the time. One lesson learned there was those events happened at off peak hours and used the office parking for parking. It would cost $8,000 to $10,000 for parking space and should spend the money on the green items and minimize the amount of parking built in the park.

He showed an image at what Target was looking at building across the street from their corporate campus. It was a small town square with mixed use and a small stage. He stated they needed to make sure wherever the city positioned the venues for the events in the park that they were not competing with anyone else.

Some of the things the Task Force was looking at on the uses which was number one on their priorities list, a pavilion for 500 people. A leasable pavilion and a big one. It had to have steel structure and robust columns and there was demand for it in the city. They also heard there was a demand for a 300 person pavilion. There was a tremendous demand for the larger pavilions the city had now and having a 150 plus pavilion with 300 people and was not working.

They looked at amphitheater type ideas on how that use might work. The idea was to build a permanent stage and the rest of it would probably be pop up uses. It was important to put in the infrastructure in like the wiring, electricity for the stage and not rent it because it was expensive to rent. In Kentucky, they had been renting and the city decided it was cheaper to build than renting it. It cost $50,000 to bring in and set up and take down every summer for their concert series because the acts required certain wiring.

What was being proposed for the city, sound buffering would be needed because of the residents around.

Other uses. They could do food and beverage and restrooms and some of those could be popups. He stated they needed to provide hard scape if they were going to do food trucks so they didn’t damage the landscaping and it needed to be a well thought out design.

Parking. On an acre of land it could park 100 to 110 cars and 100 was a good number. One space for every 2.5 people according to city staff. For the 500 person pavilion would need 2 acres of parking and for a 500 person event would need 20 acres of parking if everyone parked in the park. Those numbers weren’t going to work if they tried to park everyone in the park. Target had the capacity to park 6,000 workers and there were 4,000 parking spaces already and was just the beginning on what they were going to build. There would be street space which would be built with the infrastructure and had the huge church parking lot and no reason beyond the day to day park use. There was no reason to park for a venue in the park because it would waste of a lot of land and should use other available parking lots.

Iconic elements. They had a water tower in mind and knew the city was going to have a water tower in the park. He showed some examples of water towers and said it was an

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 6

opportunity to do something with the water tower and was a brand for Brooklyn Park. He showed an example of a water tower that Council Member Jordan suggested and the committee felt was the winner. He gave an example of a California Air Force Base that was converted to a park. It had a large orange balloon on a tether and people could get in a gondola and it went up and reeled back in and didn’t go anywhere. It had become the icon for the park and everyone knew the park with the big orange balloon because no one else had one and was just a novelty but was a very distinctive thing.

Mr. Long showed a picture of the water tower the Task Force liked. He stated what they liked about it was using light to add color and was not painted. He stated it was elegant and modern, was different than any other standard tower with the city’s name on it. He stated it was something that was very iconic and within the region seeing it at night would be very distinctive. He stated the Task Force thought the water tower should be treated as an opportunity and could be the first in the United States to have a water tower of that shape. Council Member Mata asked what was used to light the tower with. Mr. Long stated they used LED lighting and the tower appeared to have some fixtures attached to it with blue lighting. It was a white tower and with the blue lights projected. He stated the lights were so bright and crisp and could do all kinds of things to project on the tower. Council Member Jordan stated the idea around it was that for miles around it would be the icon and imagine coming over the hill on Interstate 694 and could see all the water towers in Fridley but at night Brooklyn Park’s tower would be seen. Mr. Long stated that after they went through the discussions about the elements in the park, the Task Force identified some priorities: a pavilion for 500 people, a pavilion for 300 people, music with a permanent performance stage, and came back to the top priorities, the wow factor and the signature feature but also on the menu was a smaller secondary stage, a water feature, a wedding amenity which would include a garden, a waterfall associated with one of the pavilions, an enclosed 300 person pavilion for winter use, food vendor sites, a tater daze stage; event lawn for soccer, and public art. He stated there were issues to be resolved: excess size of the park, funding, cost estimates, phasing, and the right of way for the Met Council sewer line. He stated the Task Force had homework to do and were going back and look at refining it and develop some design principles that would be the overarching words. He stated what they were going to do was do a cleanup of the sketch so they had something to talk about and figure out what the next step was. Council Member Trepanier asked if there was discussion of a 500 person, 300 person pavilion and maybe a couple of smaller ones.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 7 Mr. Long stated they discussed it and there was plenty of room as it turned out. He stated the idea of a frog pond was discussed and showed a picture of a pond from Boston. It was a shallow six inch deep pool with a changing house, food and beverage and called it the frog pond. He stated that in the summer it was popular where kids came and waded in the play area. In the winter they used it for skating and used the same house as a warming house and the only feature in the frog pond was an aeration device and was not a water park. He stated the idea the Task Force came up with was to do a series of events which could be phased in and built out by priority over a series of years if money permitted it. He showed where the Operations and Maintenance Facility and Xylon Road would be built and with Oak Grove Parkway there was a loop section, and where West Broadway intersected with Oak Grove Parkway. Council Member Parks stated the Tater Daze festival set up needed to be put on asphalt and not grass. Mr. Long stated that they talked about that and the hard part of Tater Daze was that it needed to go on hard scape and the parking lots would be a good idea. He stated one of things they had to do once they got the next level of rough concepts was to take the Tater Daze festival and lay it out and see how to stage it. Council Member Parks stated that the Ferris Wheel and the rides had to be on asphalt and tried to keep the tents off the grass because it was easier to weigh them down. If they tried to put them on the grass and had a windstorm, they would lose the tents and cost money for the insurance. Recreation and Parks Director Yungers stated that one of the things to be thinking about for Tater Daze was it might be the one time to eliminate its footpath in the park and use the entire bituminous system within in the park to put other activities in it. She stated the festival at Shoreview, the whole park was shut down and used the Deluxe Corporation across the street for parking and there were three parking lots and used the hard surface for food and beverage, and the carnival. Council Member Crema stated that with Tater Daze it made him think about security and with having all of those different areas would have to quadruple the security staff. He stated they would have to make sure all the paths were well lit for security. Mr. Long stated they talked about security and especially the center of the park where it was an active use and needed supervision. He stated that the more passive spaces that would be more visible needed discussion and how to keep a 35 acres park safe was important.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 8 He stated the designs being shown was very preliminary and was only looking at today’s thoughts. He stated the Task Force was very enthusiastic, engaged and would continue to come back to the Council with great ideas. Recreation and Parks Director Yungers stated the next step for the Task Force was to set a date to meet to follow up and they had a lot of homework to do. She stated they had a lot of notes to pull together on what those next steps were. She asked what the Council saw as the next phase once they got a preliminary plan and there needed to be community engagement too. She stated they went through the community engagement process for the amplified sound, which rolled out into the need for expanded facilities to accommodate large groups with sound. She stated the design needed to go back to the community for input and the Council give direction to the Task Force moving forward because Council didn’t want to go too far down the road to refine the concepts until the Council had feedback from the community to validate it and meet the goals set forward. She stated it was a ahead of the system planning work that was discussed regarding gaps within the community where certain parks and facilities were and would be the purpose of going through the system planning. She stated they also had the joint master planning going out with the Three Rivers District on the Coon Rapids Dam. She stated the Council needed to be aware there were other areas of the community that were not seen because the system plan was not being folded out until after the Community Plan. She stated she heard comments about “what about the south side of the community” and those were some of the things that needed to be taken into consideration. Council Member Trepanier stated he was excited by it and thought about the large and smaller pavilions and how the groups from the city could afford to lease them. He stated that going forward that was one of the things the Council needed to think about. He stated that was major concern for him and maybe if a group was in the city or worked in the city, the costs would be substantially less. Council Member Parks stated the Met Council wanted to put their maintenance station there and asked if they were involved financially and if there was some leverage the city had for it. Recreation and Parks Director Jody stated that because the original 33 acres was purchased with OSLAD funds and through the park bond, it had to be paid back to the park system. She stated they had an obligation of providing a dollar value or property value back to the community for putting that maintenance station there. She stated they had to find out what that market value might be because it would have to be rezoned to be put into that property. Council Member Parks asked if the Tater Daze festival was moved to the site, were they going to move the parade again. He stated the parade used to go up and down Brookdale Drive and

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 9 then it moved up north and the people south of 85th Avenue had no way of getting there and would be a concern again. He stated that if the light rail did come through, then they would have access to get them up there. He stated that if it was put up north it would help to have a circulator that went around the city but might be another issue. He stated the reason they put the parade at the current location was because it ended at the festival grounds and people would come into the festival. Recreation and Parks Director Yungers stated it would be up to the Tater Daze committee to determine if the parade should be moved based on what they saw. Council Member Crema stated that if there were going be community engagement meetings, they needed to have some general idea of the costs, for example, a 500 person pavilion with a concrete pad was “X” amount of dollars, and a 300 person pavilion was “X” amount of dollars, a one acre frog pond would be “X” amount of dollars, and lost tax revenue for the property would be “X” amount dollars. He liked the water tower and stated there was not one in the United States and asked where it was made, how much would it cost to be shipped and put in. He thought they needed to figure it out and see if it was viable economical so the Council could say that is why the Council thought it was good. Council Member Trepanier suggested they contact Julie Quarve Peterson. Her background was with American Disabilities Act (ADA) across the country. He stated she testified before Congress and was practical and hired her many years ago to train architects, not on the law so much as understanding it. He stated that her ideas surprised many architects and having someone go along with the architects was worth a ton and the city had used it relative to ADA. Mayor Pro Tem Gates stated the Council needed to know what that taxable value was and liked the fact that the amphitheater type stage was far south on the plan and facing away from residents. He stated his only concern was parking and if Tater Daze was there asked if people were going to walk from the Target parking lot or the Park and Ride to Tater Daze. He stated that even with a bigger event they would have to figure it out. The light rail went right past it with the maintenance facility and asked if there could be a small station just for special events that only ran on special event days where it made an extra trip. Council Member Jordan stated that part of it for Tater Daze would be to work with the Grace Fellowship church which was very close. Recreation and Parks Director Yungers stated that even if there was another event that came into the park and wanted to do a large event, their job would be to meet with the Police Department and to develop a parking safety plan. She stated they would also work with those

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 10 using the other facilities in their nonpeak times. Mayor Pro Tem Gates thanked Mr. Long for this presentation.

2. LRT Update. Community Development Director Kim Berggren gave an update on LRT. She stated she wanted to follow up with information with the County on the right turn lane conversations related to some concerns. She stated Mr. Long had been working on the Station Area Planning document and had a preliminary draft that was being edited. She stated he would offer a few comments on where he was with the plan. City Engineer Struve stated that one of the concerns they heard was when the traffic queued back without the right turn lanes in the light cycle. Would it be able to allow all the cars to go through in a light cycle so the cars at the end didn’t come up and all of the sudden hit another red light and had to sit through two cycles. He stated that based on their modeling it showed it would work and all of the cars would go through. He stated they would show a video they took by 97th Avenue and Noble Parkway, which did not have a right turn lane. He stated one thing to note on that intersection was the right turn movements in the p.m. was twice as much as being projected out on 85th Avenue and West Broadway in 2040. He stated the right turn lane movement was in the 600 range and according to projections the 2040 peak was 385 on 85th Avenue and West Broadway on right turn movements going northbound. Council Member Crema asked if they could be checked now to see what they were from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. City Engineer Struve stated it was based on existing counts today on West Broadway going south with 338 right turn movements in the peak p.m. hours going northbound. He stated that one thing they wanted to show with the intersection was with the significant increase in the right turn lanes and without a right turn lane was how the light currently functioned. He stated that in today’s standard, a driver could make it through. He stated the video was difficult to see, mainly because at night it was difficult to tell where the back of the queue was. At 5:10 p.m. they could see the queue and cars driving up about a 45 second through movement the light allowed. Council Member Mata asked if they could tell which cars were turning right on the video. City Engineer Struve stated they would be able to see a car hitting its brakes, the car in front of it or a car making a right turn. He stated that on the video the cars were through the queue and

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 11 could see the gap and they all made it through. Council Member Jordan asked about West Broadway and asked why create the delay when it didn’t need to. He stated there were already right turn lanes and were always planned as right turn lanes. He stated now they were going to create the need to be delayed and didn’t need to do that. City Engineer Struve stated that from what he heard from Hennepin County it was going to be one issue where they did look at standards, the roadways they put in now, and with those types of volumes didn’t put in right turn lanes. Council Member Jordan stated the County came to the city with a plan a year and half ago that had right turn lanes. Mr. Long stated that the community college was projecting to spend $208 million. He stated their major investment was going to be north in the fine arts campus and also had the integration of the light rail. Over the next 20 years they saw it becoming a much more intense destination and their mode split was higher than most of the population for getting there by other means other than the car because the people going to college there, their income demographics were very diverse. He stated it was going to be a more pedestrian sensitive environment because there would be people going from north to south. He stated that when the Community College crossed 85th Avenue, they talked about iconic things. What they were planning there was pretty remarkable and the station area plan called for the County Library and the College to do civic space at that corner. Council Member Jordan stated he was making the case for more right turns because there was going to be more traffic. If they had a performing arts center, there was going to be a lot more driving that happened there. Mr. Long stated the nervousness was the people going down the right and cruising around the corner but not stopping to let the pedestrians and cycles go and the speeds on that street was some concern. City Engineer Struve stated the other reason why their thoughts changed was the amount of pedestrians they were projecting in the area. He stated that currently it was a couple of hundred a day passing through the intersection and some of the projections were upwards of 4,000 pedestrians passing through the intersection. He stated when they started to hear those numbers it changed their thought on the corridor and right turn lanes. He stated that Hennepin County did share that they did a delayed study in the area and what they were projecting, by taking away the right turn lane was a delay about 30 seconds from potentially what a right turn lane person would be sitting through.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 12 Council Member Mata stated that on 85th Avenue in their calculation of the time delay asked how much time delay there would be if they had to wait for a green light because they were back behind a couple of cars and then all of those pedestrians decided they wanted to cross. Now they were sitting there, couldn’t get across and couldn’t turn because the pedestrians were crossing. They were backing up all of the other traffic behind them and when the light changed red and couldn’t turn anywhere. Mr. Long stated there was a pedestrian cycle in the light and they couldn’t cross when the light turned green. City Manager Stroebel stated the cycle was about 45 seconds and had been told that the cycle they were anticipating at 85th Avenue would be a minute and a half. City Engineer Struve stated the video showed that the right turn lanes were fairly empty and the left turn was well back. He stated it was tough to tell where the queue was as it came through. Council Member Jordan stated there weren’t any pedestrians trying to cross at the light that he was talking about especially if talking about all the numbers that was mentioned. He stated the right turn people would have to wait three lights before turning. Mayor Pro Tem Gates stated that in the counts they did, there was a right turn lane there now and when the traffic was going east, cars couldn’t turn there anyway and had to wait at that turn light. He asked if there was an estimate of how much they were waiting now and waiting for cars going east to get through. City Engineer Struve stated he would have to talk to Hennepin County to see if they delayed it. He stated he had gone out there a few times in the mornings mainly on Brooklyn Boulevard that had more of the right turn lanes than 85th Avenue. He watched four or five cycles of the lights and for the most part it was a minimal delay of maybe five seconds. He stated they didn’t see a big delay on that right turn lane on 85th Avenue. Community Development Director Berggren stated that was all they wanted to share with the Council tonight. They wanted to show what the existing conditions were in terms of light clearance because that was a question. Council Member Jordan stated that living near West Broadway since 1982 and seeing it like it was today was thinking thought about what it was going to be like in the future and was even worse with what was coming and he had to have right turn lanes. Council Member Mata stated that he went that way every day of the week up West Broadway and turned on 85th Avenue. Without the right turn lane, today there were six cars in front of

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 13 him and he couldn’t count the cars behind him. Cars were all turning right and there were three cars in the right lane even though the right lane ended about 50 yards up on West Broadway and back to a single lane. He stated there were still three cars in there and without the right turn lane would be stuck behind and would never make it through. City Engineer Struve stated there was a delay many times when they were in the right turn lanes trying to go right from north bound to east bound onto 85th Avenue. He stated that somewhere from 5 to 15 seconds maybe a 20 second delay and what they were projecting was the delay without the right turn lanes to be about 36 seconds in the 2040 build out. Community Development Director Berggren stated they would be happy to talk about it if they had additional follow up questions and had time set aside next Monday night. She stated that the agenda was dedicated to making sure the city was prepared for the resolution related to the municipal consent vote. Mr. Long stated that because there was a five mile corridor it was going to be rebuilt and an opportunity for the city, like the Task Force was talking about the iconic park for the destination park to really create a unified vision there. To do that, Council had to make sure to drive the design guidelines. The lighting standards were the lighting standards they wanted and not have County standards, BPO standards, AURU standards, and fencing standards. He thought the BPO and County would be putting in the fencing and Council needed to drive the aesthetics and landscaping. He stated the Council had a unique opportunity to do something for generations in the future where it got built out and everyone made their own decisions in the first build out. He stated no one would recognize it in 15 years and 93rd Avenue would change. He stated that 85th Avenue was going to be much different in 10 years and that corner had a niche in the market place for who they served and how they worked with the communities and other communities. He thought it was an exciting area and that particular station, thought it was going to be transformed with the investment and have public money that was going to be put in there, would be high quality and excited to see how it all turned out in the future. City Engineer Struve stated that he would be asking about the pedestrian movements. He believed that the 4,000 they were talking about were mainly from east to west. He stated what he didn’t have a good handle on was the pedestrian movements that were projecting to go in from south to 85th Avenue. It would affect the delay right away when the light turned green and the main group of people moved north or south. He stated that was one thing he would be following up with Hennepin County.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; JANUARY 26, 2016…Page 14 ADJOURNMENT – With consensus of the Council, Mayor Pro Tem Gates adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. ___________________________ RICH GATES, MAYOR PRO TEM _________________________ DEVIN MONTERO, CITY CLERK

REGULAR BROOKLYN PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 25, 2016 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Jeffrey Lunde PRESENT: Mayor Jeffrey Lunde; Council Members Rich Gates, John Jordan, Terry Parks, Peter Crema, Bob Mata and Mike Trepanier; City Manager Jay Stroebel; City Attorney Melissa Manderschied; Community Development Director Kim Berggren; Finance Director Al Rolek, Deputy Police Chief Mark Bruley; and City Clerk Devin Montero. ABSENT: None. Mayor Lunde opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. 2A RESPONSE TO PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT – None. 2B PUBLIC COMMENT

1. Gordy Aune, Jr. addressed the Council regarding Next Door Housing facility for seniors. He introduced Mr. Jesse Lammi from Next Door Housing.

2. Jesse Lammi, Next Door Housing, addressed the Council regarding the housing for seniors for independent living.

3. Merna Kinglsey, 8532 Telford Crossing. Commented on how staff did an excellent job with the Police Department open house. She stated there was something for everyone to see and do. She stated the individuals at the booths were courteous and informative and was a real joy and rewarding to see that many people attend.

4. Shawn Roop, 10550 Noble Circle North. Commented on the franchise fees regarding his assessment on his property. Stated he bought a house on a street that was 2 years old and talked to the street department and said it was a 30 year street. Now that his street was 10 years old, had two thirds life left, asked when he would see the 66% of $11,000 for the cost of the street. He stated he asked the street department when they would repave his street and was told in 30 years. He stated that from 2006, it would be 2036, yet the franchise fees supposed to end in 2028. It told him that not only was he paying for other peoples streets to get fixed or replaced plus if he was still there in 2036, he would be paying assessments on his street.

3A. MOTION GATES, SECOND CREMA TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY CLERK WITH REMOVAL OF ITEM 3B2. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 3B1 Planning Commission Chair Tonja West‐Hafner gave the Planning Commission Annual Verbal report to the Council.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 2 3B3 Mayor Lunde presented the Toastmasters Charter Certificate to Laura Zehner, Director of Area 14 Toastmasters, on behalf of the Brooklyn Park Leaders’ Club Toastmasters. He read a proclamation proclaiming April 25, 2016 as The Leaders Club Toastmasters Day in the City of Brooklyn Park. 3B4 Mr. Scott Taylor, Principal of Park Brook Elementary School, briefed the Council on the education program grant. 3B4 MOTION LUNDE, SECOND TREPANIER TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 2016‐77 SUPPORTING PARK BROOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL’S SUBMITTAL OF THE CAROL M. WHITE PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM (PEP) GRANT ADMINISTERED BY THE OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4.0 MOTION GATES, SECOND CREMA TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE CONSENT ITEM:

4.1 TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐78 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF “INTERSTATE NORTH BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION” SUBDIVIDING 15.24 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7050 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH AND 7051 WEST BROADWAY.

4.2 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 11, 2016, AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY CLERK.

4.3 TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐79 SUPPORTING A JOB CREATION FUND APPLICATION BY BIOMERICS LLC.

4.4 TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐80 TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER AGREEMENT NO. 12 WITH SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC., TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 94TH AVENUE AND COLORADO AVENUE, CIP 4022‐15.

4.5 TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐81 AUTHORIZING THE RENEWAL OF THE MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT FOR A THREE YEAR TERM IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,081 PER YEAR FROM SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL THROUGH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA PURCHASING CONTRACT.

4.6 TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐82 APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF “HIDDEN TRAILS ESTATE” SUBDIVIDING 2.51 ACRES INTO 6 SINGLE‐FAMILY LOTS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 101st AVENUE AND FALLGOLD PARKWAY.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 3

4.7 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 9, 2016, AT 7:00 P.M., TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON A FIVE YEAR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND THE ISSUANCE OF STREET RECONSTRUCTION BONDS.

MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. At 7:35 p.m. Mayor Lunde recessed to the Board of Appeal and Equalization meeting. At 8:09 p.m. Mayor Lunde reconvened the Regular Council Meeting. 6.1 Planning Director Cindy Sherman briefed the Council on the Variance to Exceed the Number of Structures Allowed and to Exceed the Total Square Foot of Accessory Structure Permitted on Lots Greater than One Acre at 8015 Sunkist Boulevard North. Council Member Crema asked about the proportionality and if the city was facing requests like it in the future, was the Council looking at it every time someone came in treat it on a proportional basis. Planning Director Sherman stated that variances were looked at individually and that each individual circumstance was unique and didn’t have to treat a variance the same on different properties. She stated that if someone asked staff, they would consider it in any case if it was a reasonable request. Council Member Parks stated there was talk about removing structures B3 and B4 in a reasonable amount of time. Planning Director Sherman stated they proposed in the resolution that those two structures would have to be removed by June 1, 2017, or when the new building was completed, whichever occurred first. She stated they needed to have a place to put their stuff and their thought was if they got the new building done and they moved everything out then they needed to demolish it. If it happened in September this year, it had to be removed, whichever came first. Council Member Gates asked if all of the code issues had been taken care of that were talked about at the last meeting. Planning Director Sherman stated there was a deadline and all hadn’t been taken care of. She stated that Mr. Pruitt had been working closely with Ms. Peterson and had a schedule when everything had to be in conformance and most things had to be by June 1 of this year on the things that were still remaining.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 4 6.1 MOTION LUNDE, SECOND JORDAN TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐83 TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PERMITTED ON LOTS GREATER THAN ONE ACRE AT 8015 SUNKIST BOULEVARD NORTH AND TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR MORE THAN TWO DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. MOTION PASSED. (6 TO 1) GATES VOTED NO. 6.2 Planning Director Cindy Sherman briefed the Council on the Conditional Use Permit #16‐104 for an Outside Pet Run at 7224 Winnetka Avenue North. 6.2 MOTION LUNDE, SECOND GATES TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐84 APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OUTDOOR PET RUN AS AN ACCESSORY USE AT 7224 WINNETKA AVENUE NORTH. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 7.1 Operations and Maintenance Director Dan Ruiz briefed the Council on the City Code Appendix Fee Resolution Table Amendments to Water and Sanitary Sewer Utility Rates and Charges. Council Member Mata asked why the increases were going up. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated the proposed water increase was to cover projects in the five year CIP and save money toward other future projects. He gave an example, that over the next four years they were doing a big reconstruction project in the Bass Creek neighborhood. The franchise fees covered the street portion but its retained earnings from the water and sewer funds that had to pay for the replacement of sewer and water in that reconstruction project would lead to spending down the fund. He stated they needed to put in the recommended rate increases so they could start saving in the fund to cover the next round of reconstruction projects. He gave options:

Option 1. Not to increase the fixed water charge in 2016. Only increase the water usage charges per 1,000 gallons used in 2016 through 2019. Would lower the rate increase on the water side from 5% to 3%. With this option would recommend delaying a few projects to help offset those reduced revenues.

Option 2. Would not increase the fixed or variable water usage rates in 2016 but still recommend implementing the rates for the outlying 3 years, 2017 through 2019. In addition to the delayed projects from Option 1, they would also have to delay a watermain replacement along West Broadway.

He stated that staff recommends the rate increases as presented on the March 28 rates. He stated he wanted to outline a couple of other options if the majority of the Council was not in favor of those rate increases that had been previously recommended.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 5 Council Member Trepanier stated that one of things he would not like the Council doing was delaying maintenance on West Broadway. He stated he hoped to get 40 plus years out of street and in 15 years if they were digging it up again, created more problems for that street. He stated that delayed maintenance almost always cost more to the city in long run than not doing it when they needed to do it. He stated that was not a policy he would support. Council Member Gates asked how much was one year’s worth of the increase. He stated that his concern was that by delaying it one year, couldn’t believe they had to delay all those projects. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated that delaying it one year would reduce revenue by $300,000 for the first year. The way the rate study was done and the recommendations were that the rate increases were stacked. They would get an additional $300,000 in 2016 and would already be proportionate because of going into May. In 2017, there would be the $300,000 increase already there plus another $300,000 increase. In 2018, it would be the $300,000 increase from 2016, the two $300,000 increases from 2017, and one additional $300,000 in 2018 and happened in 2019. He stated the rate increases were 5% each year by eliminating $300,000 this year over four years it was $1.2 million less in revenue and that was where a major project would have to be moved if rate increase wasn’t passed this year. He stated it was a four year rate study with 5% increases each year, both the water rate increases and sewer rate increases were recommended each year. The dollar amount was $8.50 per quarter for year one, then an additional $8:50 per quarter in year two and additional $8:50 in year three and an additional $8.50 per quarter for year four and was how ended up being 5% each year. Council Member Gates stated it was not the way he understood it and was no way the Council could do it. Council Member Crema asked if the $300,000 a year loss revenue Director Ruiz referenced if that was only relating to water was sewer and water. He asked if the Council didn’t vote it in this year, would the city lose $1.2 million. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated it was related to sewer and water. He stated that over the course of four years, it would be $1.2 million less. Council Member Crema stated that was if the Council voted no four years in a row. If they voted no this year and voted yes the following year, would lose $25,000 or $30,000 because and gave an example, if they were taking 5% increase of 100 was 105 then take a 5% increase again would be 111 and would lose $300,000 a small percentage on the compounding of it. He asked

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 6 what the effect of it would be if Council passed the sewer charge which was something beyond their control, but did not pass the water charge. He stated he agreed with Council Member Trepanier that a deferred maintenance could be an issue. He stated that through no fault of their own, where they had no alternative other than passing a franchise fee, then presented with a budget that was 11 or 12 percent increase and got it down to 7 percent. He stated that now a couple of months later, they were asking the residents to pull out their wallets again and that bothered him and didn’t think he would support the water increase. He stated he might support the Met Council increase because that was a passed on cost. Council Member Mata stated there was $14 million in the reserve fund and asked they could use that instead of raising it to $350,000. He asked why they couldn’t take out $350,00 from the fund and pay this year and maybe make increases next year. He stated he could not and would not support another increase to the residents. He stated the Council had done too much already this year and thought they should take $350,000 out of the reserve and take care of this year and see where they were next year and vote on it next year. He stated they were not losing anything by doing it and not losing $1.2million and couldn’t support it either way. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated that the Projected Water Fund chart was based on if the rate increases proposed were approved. He stated it showed the best possible scenario of the fund in four years. Even with the rate increases as proposed they would be falling just below the recommended minimum targeted working capital by 2019. If the Council chooses not to increases any water rates, then the bar in 2019 would be more below than the minimum targeted recommended balance. Council Member Parks stated he was not going to support the water increase either. He stated he didn’t vote for budget in December because he got phone calls from people that couldn’t afford it with their taxes going up again. He stated the Council just had people coming here and talk about their house costs being raised. With the franchise fees felt like the Council was doing too much in too short of a time. He asked what the timetable for the Met Council representative to come back and tell the Council what they were doing. He stated he couldn’t increase any more money out of peoples wallets and agreed with Council Members Crema and Mata and was not going to support the water rate increase. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated that the Met Council representative said she would bring the message back to the Met Council in terms of not being happy with the rate increases. Regarding part of future discussion in terms of bringing back hard data for further consideration didn’t think there was any. He stated that what they got from the Met Council was included in the Council packet, showing the billion dollar plus projects they were working on and what the capital improvement plan was for the next five years.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 7 Council Member Crema asked if Director Ruiz was able to find out of the $350,000 what the Met Council component was. He asked that looking at the water fund if it did not include the sewer issues or was the sewer and water included. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated it was $300,000 for the water side on the sewer side was higher, at $450,000 on the revenue that would be generated. He stated the project sewer fund slide showed the cash position of the sewer fund. He stated the sewer fund was in a better position than the water utility fund; however, the most recent rate increase from the Met Council was a surprise and those surprises helped them weather the storm. He stated they saw an $850,000 increase in one year from the Met Council and that was a 20% increase and now were seeing a 6% projected increase over the next five years. 7.1 MOTION TREPANIER, SECOND GATES TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CITY CODE APPENDIX FEE RESOLUTION TABLE AMENDMENTS TO WATER UTILITY RATES AND CHARGES. Mayor Lunde asked for a roll call vote. 7.1 THE MOTION FAILED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: YES – TREPANIER; NO – JORDAN, CREMA, LUNDE, PARKS, MATA, GATES. 7.1 MOTION LUNDE, SECOND GATES TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐85 TO APPROVE CITY CODE APPENDIX FEE RESOLUTION TABLE AMENDMENTS TO SANITARY SEWER UTILITY RATES AND CHARGES. Council Member Crema stated he struggled with the sewer rates too because it was a charge that had been passed on by the Met Council and couldn’t do anything about it. He agreed with Council Member Trepanier on the deferred maintenance where that could be a problem. He stated that going to the citizens and saying their taxes would be increasing when there was $12.5 million in the bank and would have $12 million next year, and thought there might be a problem in three or four years would vote no on the motion. Mayor Lunde stated he believed the sewer was a pass through and nothing the Council could do on it. He stated he was thinking about looking at a one year freeze on the water because that was what the Council was talking about and wanting to wait a year and try to eat some of the costs. He stated that either way the Met Council was getting their money and it was about how the city was going to pay for it. He stated the only reason he made the motion was thinking if the water could be flat for one year and the Council reexamined it with the sewer cost being passed on. Council Member Mata stated there was over $13 million sitting in bank and couldn’t see going to the residents to keep that balance up. He stated the city could eat the bill for the first year

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 8 and was not hurt the city, not going to go broke and not get the sewers replaced. He stated to pay for it without going to the residents instead of saying the city needed more because the Council had already done that too much this year. He stated he wouldn’t support it. Council Member Crema stated historically when the total budget was done the water and sewer were separated out. He stated he might have held a tighter line on the budget if he would have known it was coming back and doing it at the end of the first quarter of the year. He stated he was not in favor of depleting funds and delaying projects and knew it was more symbolic than beneficial. He stated it might be a situation where next year they were going to have to increase it again but rather increase it at a higher amount even though he understood it was a pass through. He stated they were taking money out of the bank, was money the tax payers put in the bank and for symbolic reasons he would vote no tonight. Mayor Lunde asked for a roll call vote. 7.1 THE MOTION PASSED ON A ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: YES – LUNDE, PARKS, GATES, TREPANIER, JORDAN; NO – CREMA, MATA. Mayor Lunde stated he would like to go the previous motion on the water rates and charges. He stated he would like to make a motion to freeze water rates for one year for the purpose of the city studying exactly how to look at the fund long term so it was brought back to the Council so that at one year’s time the Council could look at it. Or simply make a motion to freeze the water rates for one year or do not have anything because the rates would stay as is. City Attorney Manderschied recommended not have anything. She stated to direct the department to study the issue would be an appropriate motion but would not recommend a freeze because that had larger implications. Mayor Lunde stated he didn’t think he wanted to make a motion. He stated it was about having a discussion this summer or fall and look at what the Council might do long term rather than coming back next year and having another crack at it. Operations and Maintenance Director Ruiz stated what they would do was to bring it back as part of the 2017 budget proposal and done in concert with the rest of the budget. 9A COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Lunde stated that today he took part in the board cutting ceremony for Menards that was now open. He stated it was double the size, space and number of employees.

BROOKLYN PARK COUNCIL MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 9 Council Member Parks stated staff did a fantastic job for the Police Department open house and many attended the event up until 4 p.m. 9B CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS City Manager Stroebel stated that on Saturday, April 30, there was a special materials drop off day at the Operations and Maintenance facility from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. He stated that on May 4 there would be a community meeting in the Central District on the Brooklyn Park 2025 plan from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Birch Grove Elementary School. On May 11, from 5:30 to 8 p.m., national and local experts would be leading a placemaking event on the Brooklyn Boulevard station area planning. Residents and community stakeholders were invited to participate in a walking tour followed by a community meeting and discussion. Meet at the Starlite Shopping Center, formerly, TJ Maxx building. ADJOURNMENT – With consensus of the Council, Mayor Lunde adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. __________________________ JEFFREY JONEAL LUNDE, MAYOR _________________________ DEVIN MONTERO, CITY CLERK

BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING Monday, April 25, 2015 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:35 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North CALL TO ORDER – Chair Jeffrey Lunde PRESENT: Chair Jeffrey Lunde; Board Members Rich Gates John Jordan, Terry Parks, and Mike Trepanier; Peter Crema, Bob Mata, City Manager Jay Stroebel; City Assessor Marvin Anderson; City Attorney Melissa Manderschied; Deputy Police Chief Mark Bruley; and City Clerk Devin Montero. ABSENT: None. B. City Assessor Marvin Anderson briefed on the purpose of the Board of Appeal and Equalization and gave the Assessor’s report and stated there were individuals signed up to address the Board and contest the value of their properties. The following individuals addressed the Board to contest their property values: 1. Shawn Roop, 10550 Noble Circle N. 2. Lowell Hancuh, (Blue River Properties) 8557 Wyoming Ave N. Unit #6. 3. Gail Peremislove, 5660 Brookdale Dr. N. 4. Christopher Higgins, 7001 103rd Ave N. 5. Michael O’Connell, 8625 Mattson Brook Lane N. Was not present to speak. 6. Konstantin Ginzburg, 7564 Maplebrook Parkway N. City Assessor Anderson stated letters and emails were received from the following property owners contesting their values: 1. Stanley Kondziolka, 9127 Glen Edin Lane North. 2. Ravi Limkar, 9749 Thomas Ave N.; 3927 Globeflower Circle N.; 6409 88th Ave N. 7200 90th Ave N. 10460 Vera Cruz Dr. N. 3. Lanel Financial Group Inc., BP Limited Partnership, (Creekside Apartments), 7601 Zane Ave N. 4. Received an appealed from a tax representative group two weeks ago from Florida, Ryan LLC, on 28 single family residential rentals for the following properties:

5539 84 ½ Ave N 7648 Regent Ave N 7425 Dupont Ave N 6288 Sunrise Ter N 10364 Orchard Tr N 5237 99th Cir N 5043 Ladyslipper Ave N

8641 Girard Ave N 2617 Edinbrook Ter N 3140 Berwick Knoll N 9000 Victoria Gardens N 5604 88th Crescent Cir N 8133 Wyoming Ave N 8239 Hampshire Ct N 5700 80th Ave N

8148 Vincent Ave N 7733 Emerson Ave N 708 73rd Ave N 7641 Irving Ave N 3109 75th Ave N 7539 Brunswick Ave N 7557 Kentucky Ave N 6300 Zealand Ave N

9940 Linden Ave N 9912 Kiwi Ave N

4210 78th Ct N 6525 Douglas Dr N 7709 Modern Rd N

He stated the Assessing staff requested that Ryan, LLC provide information on the income expenses on those properties and to set up an appointment to do appraisals on those properties and as of today they had not done it. He stated in order to go through the process they had to be able to get in and inspect those properties and as of today it did not look like it was going to happen. He stated staff would be recommending at the reconvened meeting to make no change in those properties because of not being able to get in and doing those appraisals. City Assessor Anderson stated the board would reconvene within 20 days and the decisions on all of the appeals would be made based on staff reports and information submitted by the property owner. C. MOTION LUNDE, SECOND PARKS TO RECONVENE THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING ON MAY 9, 2016. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. C. MOTION LUNDE, SECOND PARKS TO RECESS THE BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING TO MAY 9, 2016. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. At 7:39 p.m. Mayor Lunde reconvened the regular council meeting. ___________________________ JEFFREY JONEAL LUNDE, CHAIR _________________________ DEVIN MONTERO, CITY CLERK

BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MEETING; APRIL 25, 2016…Page 2






Resolution: N/A


Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

N/A

Presented By: Jay Stroebel, City Manager

Item: Change the June 6 and June 13 Council Meetings

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _____________, SECOND _____________, TO CHANGE THE JUNE 6 WORK SESSION TO A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, AND THE JUNE 13 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TO A WORK SESSION AND THE WORK SESSION TO BE HELD AT THE COMMUNITY ACTIVITY CENTER. Overview: This change will allow the Joint Council/Commission meeting to focus on: 1) Recognizing commissioners for their volunteerism with a dinner; and 2) Gathering input from the Council Members and Commissioners for the Brooklyn Park 2025 Community Plan. Because of the non‐traditional meeting format, the joint meeting will need to take place at a work session at the Community Activity Center. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: N/A






Operations and Maintenance – Engineering Division

Resolution: X

Prepared By:

Jeff Holstein, City Transportation Engineer

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

3

Presented By: Jesse Struve, City Engineer

Item:

Request Funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation Through the Municipal Agreements Program for Flashing Yellow Arrow Conversions at the TH 610 Ramp Intersections with Noble Parkway

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _____________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐_____ REQUESTING FUNDING FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH THE MUNICIPAL AGREEMENTS PROGRAM FOR FLASHING YELLOW ARROW CONVERSIONS AT THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 610 RAMP INTERSECTIONS WITH NOBLE PARKWAY. Overview: Public agencies throughout the country are implementing flashing yellow arrow (FYA) left turn traffic signal phasing to improve traffic safety and efficiency. During a FYA indication, drivers are allowed to turn left after yielding to all oncoming traffic and to any pedestrians in the crosswalk. Several agencies within the metro area have programs in place to convert existing protected only left turns (red arrow, yellow arrow and green arrow) and standard protective/permissive left turns (red ball, yellow ball, green ball, yellow arrow, green arrow) to FYA left turns (red arrow, yellow arrow, flashing yellow arrow and green arrow). FYA signals have been shown to help drivers make fewer mistakes. They keep drivers safer during heavy traffic periods and reduce delays when traffic is light. A national study indicated that drivers found flashing yellow left turn arrows more understandable than traditional indications which reduced driver errors and crashes. The FYA indications also provide more options and flexibility to accommodate variable traffic volumes. Their greatest benefit is that left turn phasing can be varied by time of day to respond to varying demands, which reduces delay. Current MnDOT and Hennepin County standards now include FYA for all new and reconstructed traffic signals, except where there are severe sight restriction issues. This includes dual left turns such as those at the TH 610 / Noble Parkway ramp terminal intersections. City staff believes that city residents and businesses would experience significant travel benefits (safety and reduced delay) if the city were to work with MnDOT and Hennepin County to convert the existing traffic signals along several arterial corridors to FYA. The first corridor that staff would envision converting would be Noble Parkway (CSAH 12) between 85th Avenue and 97th Avenue. Note that the Noble Parkway / 101st Avenue

4.7 Page 2

intersection is already FYA. Staff would propose to start this conversion at the TH 610 ramp intersections as MnDOT has recently issued a solicitation for Municipal Agreements Program funding and the city may be able to capture a significant portion of the conversion cost if awarded grant funds through this program. Subsequent work would include working directly with Hennepin County as the county has a FYA conversion program in place whereby the county provides all labor associated with retrofitting the signals if the cities provide the equipment. The deadline for submitting an application for MnDOT Municipal Agreement Program funding is June 8, 2016. The application must include a city council resolution supporting the project. Accordingly, staff requests the city council to approve the requesting of funding from the MnDOT Municipal Agreements Program for FYA conversions at the TH 610 ramp intersections with Noble Parkway. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: Staff will only move forward if the project receives the funding grant. If selected for funding, staff will subsequently request council approval to prepare plans and specifications for the project. Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: The estimated total project cost is $70,100. This includes design, construction and inspection/construction engineering services. The grant funding from MnDOT is expected to be $28,300. The remaining $41,800 will be paid for with city Street and Signal Light Utility funds. Attachments: 4.7A RESOLUTION 4.7B LOCATION MAP 4.7C MNDOT MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT PROGRAM SOLICITATION LETTER


RESOLUTION #2016‐

RESOLUTION REQUESTING FUNDING FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THROUGH

THE MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT PROGRAM FOR FLASHING YELLOW ARROW CONVERSIONS AT THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 610 RAMP TERMINAL INTERSECTIONS WITH NOBLE PARKWAY

WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park wishes to install flashing yellow arrow left turn traffic signal phasing at the Trunk Highway 610 ramp terminal intersections with Noble Parkway; and WHEREAS, the project will be of mutual benefit to both the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the City of Brooklyn Park; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park is submitting an application for funding a major portion of the project through the Municipal Agreement Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park agrees that if funding is provided, the city will fund the remainder of the project and complete the project during the state fiscal year (2018). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park.

1. The City of Brooklyn Park approves the requesting of funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation through the Municipal Agreements Program for flashing yellow arrow conversions at the TH 610 ramp terminal intersections with Noble Parkway.

2. The City Clerk is directed to forward (2) certified copies of this resolution to Mr. Phillip Bergem,

Cooperative Agreements Engineer, MnDOT Metro District, 1500 West County Road B2, Roseville, MN 55113‐3174.

4.7B LOCCATION MAPPage 4

P 4

44.7C MNDOTT MUNICIPAL AGREEMENNT PROGRAM SOLICITATTION LETTERPage 5

R 5

4.7CC MNDOT MMUNICIPAL AAGREEMENT PROGRAM SOLICITATIOON LETTER (CCONTINUEDPage 6

) 6






Operations and Maintenance

Resolution: X

Prepared By:

Jon Watson, Public Utilities Superintendent

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

2

Presented By: Dan Ruiz, O&M Director

Item:

Authorize Entering into Agreement with SEH Inc. for 2016 Water Main Condition Assessment Study

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐______ TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SEH INC. FOR 2016 WATER MAIN CONDITION ASSESSMENT STUDY. Overview: The request is for authorization to enter into an agreement with SEH Inc. The agreement is necessary for planning the rehabilitation and/or replacement of the water mains city wide. In the past, the decision to repair or replace a water main was determined by field observations, number of breaks, engineering judgment and intuition. This newly developed method determines a water main’s level of service and condition rating. This is done by sending a sound wave down the pipe and collecting data for each segment run of pipe between fire hydrants. The data from a tested pipe segment is compared to data from a pipe segment which the pipe condition is known. The resulting information gives an estimated condition and remaining life of the pipe. The project last year was very successful and information gained was useful for planning. This year’s project consists of approximately 7,029 feet or 16 segments of pipe. The vicinities of the project are two future proposed street reconstruction areas, West Broadway, south of Interstate 694, and four arterial roadway (highway) crossings. The information is used in combination with other reports and information to determine a strategy for the existing water main pipe as it relates to transportation projects. SEH will test pipe segments, analyze the data, and submit a condition report for the study area. City staff from Engineering and Utilities inquired with several consulting engineering companies and found that only SEH offers this type of diagnostic service. SEH conducts this project each year with various cities in the region. This year’s project will be in coordination with the Cities of Waseca and Edina. SEH Inc. is an experienced engineering firm that does work for both the public and private sectors including previous projects for the City.

4.8 Page 2 Primary issues/alternatives to consider:

Should the agreement be approved? Staff recommends approval of the agreement because it is necessary to determine the condition of the water main in these areas to better plan for upcoming roadway reconstruction.

The Council has the following alternatives to consider: 1. Approve the agreement as recommended 2. Reject the agreement and direct staff to search for more proposals from other consultants 3. Reject the agreement and do nothing

Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: The total estimated cost of the study is $49,000 ($3,062.50 per segment). The future street and utility projects identified in the 2016‐2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are project(s) 3001, 4001, 4002, 4003, and 4032. The cost for the assessment study this year can be accommodated in the 2016 Water Distribution Fund budget. Attachments: 4.8A RESOLUTION 4.8B AGREEMENT


RESOLUTION #2016‐

RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE ENTERING INTO AN

AGREEMENT WITH SEH INC. FOR 2016 WATER MAIN CONDITION ASSESSEMENT STUDY

WHEREAS, the proposed water main condition assessment is important to determine accurate cost estimates and strategy for many projects in the 2016‐2020 CIP; and

WHEREAS, a contract agreement with SEH Inc. has been submitted to the City; and WHEREAS, SEH Inc. is the only local consultant which offers this type of testing and study; and WHEREAS, the costs for the proposed study can be accommodated in the 2016 Water Distribution

Fund Budget; and WHEREAS, SEH Inc. is an experienced and respected consulting engineering company.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with SEH Inc. for 2016 water main condition assessment study in the amount of $49,000.00

SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC.

Agreement for Professional Services

This Agreement is effective as of May 9, 2016, between City of Brooklyn Park (Client) and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (Consultant).

This Agreement authorizes and describes the scope, schedule, and payment conditions for Consultant’s work on the Project described as: Non-invasive Pipe Condition Assessment for Trunk Water Main Pipe.

Client’s Authorized Representative: Jon Watson

Address: 5200 85th Avenue North

Brooklyn Park, MN 55443

Telephone: 783.493.8008 e-mail: [email protected]

Project Manager: Dave Hutton, PE

Address: 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300

Minnetonka, MN 55343

Telephone: 612-255-8747 e-mail: [email protected]

Scope: See Exhibit 1 (attached).

Schedule: See Exhibit 1 (attached)

Payment: The total lump sum cost for Non-invasive Pipe Condition Assessment for Trunk Water Main Pipe is $49,000.00. These costs include expenses and equipment.

The payment method, basis, frequency and other special conditions are set forth in attached Exhibit A-2.

General Conditions of the Agreement for Professional Services

Section I – SERVICES OF CONSULTANT

A. General 1. Consultant agrees to perform professional services as set forth in this Agreement for Professional Services

(“Basic Services”). Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the Client or the Consultant. The Consultant’s services under this Agreement are being performed solely for the Client’s benefit, and no other party or entity shall have any claim against the Consultant because of this Agreement or the performance or nonperformance of services hereunder.

B. Schedule 1. Unless specific periods of time or dates for providing services are specified, Consultant’s obligation to

render services hereunder will be for a period which may reasonably be required for the completion of said services.

2. If Client has requested changes in the scope, extent, or character of the Project or the services to beprovided by Consultant, the time of performance and compensation for Consultant’s services shall be adjusted equitably. The Client agrees that Consultant is not responsible for damages arising directly or indirectly from delays not caused in whole or in part by Consultant. If the delays resulting from such causes increase the cost or the time required by Consultant to perform its services in accordance with professional skill and care, then Consultant shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment in schedule and compensation.

C. Additional Services 1. If Consultant determines that any services it has been directed or requested to perform are beyond the

scope as set forth in the Agreement or that, due to changed conditions or changes in the method or manner of administration of the Project, Consultant’s effort required to perform its services under this Agreement exceeds the stated fee for Basic Services, then Consultant shall promptly notify the Client regarding the need for additional services. Upon notification and in the absence of a written objection,

Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. Letter Agreement – page 1 of 4 City of Brooklyn Park

4.8B AGREEMENT Page 4

Consultant shall be entitled to additional compensation for the additional services, and to an extension of time for completion of additional services absent written objection by Client.

2. Additional services shall be billed in accord with agreed upon rates, or if not addressed, then atConsultant’s standard rates.

D. Suspension and Termination 1. If Consultant’s services are delayed or suspended in whole or in part by Client, or if Consultant’s services

are delayed by actions or inactions of others for more than 60 days through no fault of Consultant, thenConsultant shall be entitled to either terminate its agreement upon 7 days written notice or, at its option,accept an equitable adjustment of rates and amounts of compensation provided for elsewhere in thisAgreement to reflect reasonable costs incurred by Consultant.

2. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven days written notice should the other partyfail substantially to perform in accordance with its terms through no fault of the party initiating thetermination.

3. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty days’ written notice without cause. Allprovisions of this Agreement allocating responsibility or liability between the Client and Consultant shallsurvive the completion of the services hereunder and/or the termination of this Agreement.

4. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be compensated for services performed prior to terminationdate, including charges for expenses and equipment costs then due and all termination expenses.

Section II – CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES

A. General 1. The Client shall, in proper time and sequence and where appropriate to the Project, at no expense to

Consultant, provide full information as to Client’s requirements for the services provided by Consultant andaccess to all public and private lands required for Consultant to perform its services.

2. The Consultant is not a municipal advisor and therefore Client shall provide its own legal, accounting,financial and insurance counseling and other special services as may be required for the Project. Clientshall provide to Consultant all data (and professional interpretations thereof) prepared by or servicesperformed by others pertinent to Consultant’s services, including but not limited to, previous reports; sub-surface explorations; laboratory tests and inspection of samples; environmental assessment and impactstatements, surveys, property descriptions; zoning, deed and other land use restrictions; as-built drawings,electronic data base and maps. The costs associated with correcting, creating or recreating any data that isprovided by the Client that contains inaccurate or unusable information shall be the responsibility of theClient.

3. Client shall provide prompt written notice to Consultant whenever the Client observes or otherwisebecomes aware of any changes in the Project or any defect in Consultant’s services. Client shall promptlyexamine all studies, reports, sketches, opinions of construction costs, specifications, drawings, proposals,change orders, supplemental agreements and other documents presented by Consultant and render thenecessary decisions and instructions so that Consultant may provide services in a timely manner.

4. Client shall require all utilities with facilities within the Client’s Project site to locate and mark said utilitiesupon request, relocate and/or protect said utilities as determined necessary to accommodate work of theProject, submit a schedule of the necessary relocation/protection activities to the Client for review andcomply with agreed upon schedule. Consultant shall not be liable for damages which arise out ofConsultant’s reasonable reliance on the information or services furnished by utilities to Client or othershired by Client unless Consultant is also negligent.

5. Unless qualified or disclaimed in writing by Client, Consultant shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy andcompleteness of information or services furnished by the Client or others employed by the Client and shallnot be liable for damages arising from reasonable reliance on such materials. Consultant shall promptlynotify the Client if Consultant discovers that any information or services furnished by the Client is in error oris inadequate for its purpose.

Section III – PAYMENTS

A. Invoices 1. Payments made under this Agreement shall be governed by the Municipal Prompt Payment Act (MN

statute 471.425).


4.8B Page 5

Section IV – GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Standards of Performance 1. The standard of care for all professional engineering and related services performed or furnished by

Consultant under this Agreement will be the care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of Consultant’sprofession practicing under similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locality. Consultantmakes no warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, in connection with itsservices.

2. Consultant is responsible for its employees and subconsultants. Client acknowledges Consultant will notdirect, supervise or control the work of Client’s construction contractors or their subcontractors at the site orotherwise. Consultant shall have no authority over or responsibility for the contractor’s acts or omissions,nor for its means, methods or procedures of construction. Consultant’s services do not include review orevaluation of the Client’s, contractor’s or subcontractor’s safety measures, or job site safety or furnishing orperforming any of the Contractor’s work.

3. If requested in the scope of a Supplemental Letter Agreement, then Consultant may provide an Opinion ofProbable Construction Cost. Consultant’s Opinions of Probable Construction Cost provided for herein areto be made on the basis of Consultant’s experience and qualifications and represent Consultant’s bestjudgment as a professional generally familiar with the industry. However, since Consultant has no controlover the cost of labor, materials, equipment or service furnished by others, or over the Contractor’smethods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant cannot anddoes not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction cost will not vary from Opinions ofConstruction Cost prepared by Consultant. If Client wishes greater assurance as to probable ConstructionCost, Client shall employ an independent cost estimator or negotiate additional services and fees withConsultant.

B. Indemnity for Environmental Issues 1. Consultant is not a user, generator, handler, operator, arranger, storer, transporter or disposer of

hazardous or toxic substances, therefore the Client agrees to hold harmless, indemnify and defendConsultant and Consultant’s officers, directors, subconsultant(s), employees and agents from and againstany and all claims, losses, damages, liability and costs, including but not limited to costs of defense, arisingout of or in any way connected with, the presence, discharge, release, or escape of hazardous or toxicsubstances, pollutants or contaminants of any kind at the site.

C. Limitations on Consultant’s Liability 1. The Client hereby agrees that to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant’s total liability to the Client

for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, or damages whatsoever arising out of or in any wayrelated to the Project or this Agreement from any cause or causes including, but not limited to, Consultant’snegligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty shall not exceed onemillion dollars ($1,000,000). In the event Client desires limits of liability in excess of those provided in thisparagraph, Client shall advise Consultant in writing and agree that Consultant’s fee shall increase by 1%for each additional million dollars of liability limits, up to a maximum limit of liability of five million dollars($5,000,000).

2. Not used.3. It is intended by the parties to this Agreement that Consultant’s services shall not subject Consultant’s

employees, officers or directors to any personal legal exposure for the risks associated with thisAgreement. The Client agrees that as the Client’s sole and exclusive remedy, any claim, demand or suitshall be directed and/or asserted only against Consultant, and not against any of Consultant’s individualemployees, officers or directors, and Client knowingly waives all such claims against Consultant individualemployees, officers or directors.

D. Assignment 1. Neither party to this Agreement shall transfer, sublet or assign any rights under, or interests in, this

Agreement or claims based on this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. Anyassignment in violation of this subsection shall be null and void.

Section V – DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. Mediation 1. Any dispute between Client and Consultant arising out of or relating to this Agreement or services provided

under this Agreement, (except for unpaid invoices which are governed by Section III), shall be submitted to


4.8B Page 6

nonbinding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. Mediation shall occur within 60 days of a written demand for mediation unless Consultant and Client mutually agree otherwise.

B. Litigation – Choice of Venue and Jurisdiction 1. Any dispute not settled through mediation shall be settled through litigation in the state where the Project at

issue is located.

Section VI – INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

A. Proprietary Information 1. All documents, including reports, drawings, calculations, specifications, CADD materials, computers

software or hardware or other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are Consultant’s Instruments of Service (“Instruments of Service”) and Consultant retains all ownership interests in Instruments of Service, including all available copyrights.

2. Consultant shall retain all of its rights in its proprietary information including, without limitation, itsmethodologies and methods of analysis, ideas, concepts, expressions, inventions, know how, methods, techniques, skills, knowledge and experience possessed by Consultant prior to, or acquired by Consultant during, the performance of this Agreement and the same shall not be deemed to be Work Product or Work for Hire and Consultant shall not be restricted in any way with respect thereto.

B. Client Use of Instruments of Service 1. Provided that Consultant has been paid in full for its services, Client shall have the right to use Instruments

of Service resulting from Consultant’s efforts on the Project. Consultant shall retain full rights to electronic data and the drawings, specifications, including those in electronic form, prepared by Consultant and its subconsultants and the right to reuse component information contained in them in the normal course of Consultant’s professional activities. Consultant shall be deemed to be the author of such Instruments of Service, electronic data or documents, and shall be given appropriate credit in any public display of such Instruments of Service.

2. Records requests or requests for additional copies of Instruments of Services outside of the scope ofservices are available to Client subject to Consultant’s current rate schedule.

C. Reuse of Documents 1. If Client provides utility data or base map shape files, Consultant may not reuse on other projects without

the permission of Client. 2. All Instruments of Service prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or

represented to be suitable for reuse by the Client or others on extensions of the Project or on any other Project. Any reuse of the Instruments of Service without written consent or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended will be at the Client’s sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant; and the Client shall release Consultant from all claims arising from such use. Client shall also defend, indemnify and hold harmless Consultant from all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of or resulting from reuse of Consultant documents without written consent.

This Agreement for Professional Services, attached General Conditions, Exhibits and any Attachments (collectively referred to as the “Agreement”) supersedes all prior contemporaneous oral or written agreements and represents the entire understanding between Client and Consultant with respect to the services to be provided by Consultant hereunder. In the event of a conflict between the documents, this document and the attached General Conditions shall take precedence over all other Exhibits unless noted below under “Other Terms and Conditions”. The Agreement for Professional Services and the General Conditions (including scope, schedule, fee and signatures) shall take precedence over attached Exhibits. This Agreement may not be amended except by written agreement signed by the authorized representatives of each party.

Other Terms and Conditions: Other or additional terms contrary to the General Conditions that apply solely to this project as specifically agreed to by signature of the Parties and set forth herein: None

Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. City of Brooklyn Park

By: By:

Title: Susan M. Mason, Principal Title:


4.8B Page 7

Exhibit A-2 to Agreement for Professional Services Between City of Brooklyn Park (Client)

and Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (Consultant)

Dated May 09, 2016

Payments to Consultant for Services and Expenses Using the Lump Sum Basis Option

The Agreement for Professional Services is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties:

A. Lump Sum Basis Option

The Client and Consultant select the Lump Sum Basis for Payment for services provided by Consultant. During the course of providing its services, Consultant shall be paid monthly based on Consultant’s estimate of the percentage of the work completed. Necessary expenses and equipment are provided as a part of Consultant’s services and are included in the initial Lump Sum amount for the agreed upon Scope of Work. Total payments to Consultant for work covered by the Lump Sum Agreement shall not exceed the lump sum amount without written authorization from the Client.

The Lump Sum amount includes compensation for Consultant’s services and the services of Consultant’s Consultants, if any for the agreed upon Scope of Work. Appropriate amounts have been incorporated in the initial Lump Sum to account for labor, overhead, profit, expenses and equipment charges. The Client agrees to pay for other additional services, equipment, and expenses that may become necessary by amendment to complete Consultant’s services at their normal charge out rates as published by Consultant or as available commercially.

B. Expenses Not Included in the Lump Sum

The following items involve expenditures made by Consultant employees or professional consultants on behalf of the Client and shall be paid for as described in this Agreement.

1. Expense of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates, if authorized in advance by the Client.

2. Other special expenses required in connection with the Project.

3. The cost of special consultants or technical services as required. The cost of subconsultant servicesshall include actual expenditure plus 10% markup for the cost of administration and insurance.

The Client shall pay Consultant monthly for expenses not included in the Lump Sum amount.

p:\ae\b\bropk\common\128332 p\exhibit a2.docx

Exhibit A-2 - 1

4.8B Page 8

Instructions: In Word, pick Acrobat then Create PDF. Save the PDF as PNG then insert each PNG, resizing each to fill page and set to Wrap in front of text.

4.8B Page 9

4.8B Page 10

EXHIBIT 1

April 25, 2016 RE: City of Brooklyn Park 2016 Pipe Condition Assessment Project SEH No. BROPK 136920 14.00

Mr. Jon Watson Utilities Superintendent City of Brooklyn Park 5200 85th Ave N. Brookl;yn Park, MN 55443

Dear Jon:

Thank you for expressing interest in SEH’s professional services to utilize our non-invasive process to assess the condition of the City’s water main pipes for 2016. SEH is proposing to team with Echologics, a division of Mueller Company, to use their Echo Shore acoustic based, non-invasive, leak detection tool to complete the City’s assessment.

SUMMARY It is our understanding that the City wants to assess the condition of 7,029 linear feet of pipe for 2016. The proposed streets and lengths of pipe are summarized in Exhibit 2. During this trip to the Midwest, Echologics will use this tool to assess the condition of pipes in three other Midwest Cities. Working in more than one City per trip allows us to spread the tool’s mobilization cost among multiple Cities thereby reducing the cost that any one City will pay for an assessment of its pipes.

BENEFITS Please recall from past year’s projects that choosing to apply this tool to the City’s pipes provides the following immediate benefits.

1. Reduce the amount of money the City spends to create potable water.

2. Reduce the amount of electricity the City uses to distribute potable water.

3. Reduce the cost the City might spend to excavate and restore the area around a leak by catching theleak in its earliest stages.

4. Allow the City to better coordinate pipe rehabilitation with capital improvement plans for otherinfrastructure occupying the right-of-way or easement.

5. Allow the City to better understand how much of its pipe network may need rehabilitation.

Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists

Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 10901 Red Circle Drive, Suite 300, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9302

SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 952.912.2600 | 800.734.6757 | 888.908.8166 fax

4.8B Page 11

Mr. Jon Watson April 25, 2016 Page 2

DELIVERABLES Below is a list of deliverables we will provide to the City at the conclusion of the assessment:

1. An update to the City GIS shape file or geodatabase (geodatabase) for each reach of pipe. We definea reach of pipe as between fire hydrants or main line valves. The update will add the followingattributes to the shape file or geodatabase.

a. An estimate of how much pipe wall has been lost to date.

b. An estimate of the pipe’s corrosion rate.

c. An estimate of the pipe’s remaining wall thickness.

2. A written report summarizing the results of the condition assessment and leak detection containingthe following information.

d. Introduction.

e. A discussion of the purpose of leak detection and condition assessment.

f. A discussion of the background of leak detection and condition assessment.

g. A discussion of the methodology of leak detection and condition assessment.

h. A description of the instrumentation used to complete the work.

i. Tabulation of condition assessment results.

j. Description of deficiencies the crew found in the field along the pipe network.

k. An appendix showing the measured results for each reach of pipe.

l. An appendix containing a summary tabulation of condition assessment ranked from worst to best.

SCHEDULE We will submit a draft report to the City within 6 weeks of completing the field work. Field work is anticipated to occur in early June depending on schedules of all participating cities.

ESTIMATED COSTS We will complete our work for an estimated not-to-exceed fee of $49,000. This cost includes reimbursable expenses. We will invoice the City for our work on a lump sum basis.

Exhibit 3 enclosed with this letter is Echologics Technical Requirements, Specifications, and Constraints. Exhibit 3 outlines the work we assume will be undertaken by City forces at their own expense. Asking us to accomplish work in Exhibit 3 will cause an additional expense.

Also, we cannot guarantee that the other Cities will proceed with their projects. If they choose not to proceed, the City would need to pay the entire Mobilization charge.

We understand that the City Council will consider a resolution from Staff at their May 9, 2016 meeting to proceed with this pipe assessment project. If the Council adopts that resolution, we will provide the necessary agreement for City execution. Our receipt of that agreement signed by the City will be our notice to proceed.

4.8B Page 12

Mr. Jon Watson April 25, 2016 Page 3

We look forward to serving the City and applying our expertise assessing the condition of the City’s water main pipes. Please contact me with questions and comments at 612.255.8747or [email protected].

Sincerely,

SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC.

David E. Hutton, PE Paul J. Pasko III, PE Project Manager Project Engineer

Enclosures c: Wayne Houle, SEH

Sue Mason, SEH Paul Pasko, SEH Jen Schumann, SEH Mike Ostendorf, SEH Brian Turner, Echologics

p:\ae\b\bropk\136920\1-genl\10-setup-cont\03-proposal\final letter proposal 042516.docx

4.8B Page 13

City of Brooklyn Park, MN Exhibit 22016 Water main condition assessment 4/26/2016 Design Measured %

Segment # From I. D. To I.D. Street name Approx. Length Dia. Type Install Year. Class Thickness Thickness Change

1 22057 22059 77th Ave. N. 477 6 DI 1976 52 0.34

2 22064 22065 77th Ave. N. 428 6 DI 1976 52 0.34

3 22067 22068 77th Ave. N. 576 6 DI 1976 52 0.34

4 22064 22063 Chowen Ave. N. 516 6 DI 1976 52 0.34

5 22058 22061 Drew Ave. N. 267 6 DI 1976 52 0.34

6 19016 19019 78th Ave. N. 501 6 CI 1971 22 0.38

7 19019 19006 Zealand Ave. N. 801 6 CI 1971 22 0.38

8 19008 19009 Aquila Ave. N. 191 6 CI 1972 22 0.38

9 32204 32203 West Broadway 313 12 CI 1968 22 0.48

10 32464 32212 West Broadway 316 12 CI 1968 22 0.48

11 32146 32486 West Broadway 309 12 CI 1968 22 0.48

12 29010 29301 73rd Ave. N. 645 8 DI 1972 52 0.41

13 30097 30105 Brooklyn Blvd 404 18 DI 1971 3 0.44

14 19189 19103 83rd Ave. N. 556 12 DI 1971 2 0.37

15 24120 24124 84th Ave. N. 338 6 DI 1978 52 0.34

16 24132 24129 83rd Ave. N. 391 8 DI 1978 52 0.41

Total Length 7029

4.8B Page 14

7. Technical Requirements, Specifications, and Constraints

7.1. Operational Requirements

7.1.1. Owner shall supply an experienced crew for operation of all Owner owned apparatus. The size of the crew depends on the details of the job. Echologics is not responsible for any operation or modification of Owner owned apparatus.

7.1.2. All fittings must be cleaned, exercised and in safe working condition prior to survey. Closed valves or other appurtenances must not be passing water. Hydrants must not be leaking. If cleaning cannot be performed prior to site-work, on site cleaning must be arranged by Client on request.

7.1.3. Client shall provide traffic management (including man power and equipment) as and when required. Echologics is not responsible for any traffic control requirements, unless explicitly included in this proposal. It is expected that the client will be proficient in all local laws and regulations.

7.1.4. If indicated as a requirement during the Project Planning phase, Echologics shall supply one crew member trained as a confined space entrant. All other aspects of confined space entry shall be of the responsibility of Client, unless explicitly included in this proposal.

7.1.5. Fall protection, including supply of fall prevention equipment and harnesses, shall be of the responsibility of Client.

7.1.6. Echologics shall follow any Lock out Tag and Tag out procedures specified by Client. Client is responsible for informing Echologics of any such procedures in effect at the work sites applicable for this project.

7.1.7. All required information regarding the pipes to be tested must be provided in advance to Echologics. The information must be up to date and in a form that can be easily interpreted. This includes as-built drawings, repair history, nominal pipe information, GIS information, pressure and flow information, locations of PRVs, pumps, reservoirs, cross-connections, reducers, tie-ins, valves, services, backflow preventers, hydrants, corp valves, and any other possible noise producing apparatus.

7.1.8. If De-chlorination / Chlorination and/or backflow preventers are required, these shall be the responsibility of Client.

7.2. General Technical Specifications and Constraints

7.2.1. Fluid temperature must be between 33º and 100º F (0.5º and 38º C)

EXHIBIT 34.8B Page 15

7.2.2. Liquid flow velocities above 5 ft/s (1.5 m/s) may result in turbulence in the line, introducing noise which can reduce the sensitivity of leak detection, and prevent collection of pipe integrity testing data. Echologics recommends that Client take steps to ensure velocities are below these levels, but will conduct testing nonetheless if Client elects to leave them at higher levels.

7.2.3. Operating pressure must be between 15 and 150psi (100 to 1000 kpa). Pressures outside of this range will require special consideration.

7.2.4. Large air pockets cannot be present in the pipe. Purging of all air may be required.

7.2.5. Significant amounts of dispersed air (milky water) can skew results. Purging of dispersed air may be required.

7.2.6. All forms of non-destructive testing involve an inherent and unavoidable level of uncertainty. The results provided by Echologics are not guaranteed. The methods used for leak detection and condition assessment are highly dependent on input parameters therefore it is not possible to certify the results. Echologics is not responsible any actions taken or recommendations made by Client based on the results of the report.

7.3. Leak Detection Technical Specifications and Constraints

7.3.1. Acceptable pipe materials are: Pit Cast Iron, Spun Cast Iron, Steel, Ductile Iron, Asbestos Cement, Reinforced or Bar-wrapped Concrete, PVC, PE and other Plastics

7.3.2. Surface mounted sensors can be magnetically attached to appurtenances such as line valves, hydrant secondary valves or to the top of the pipe at a maximum sensor-to-sensor spacing of 1000ft (300m)

7.3.3. Longer sensor-to-sensor spacing will require the use of hydrophones

7.3.3.1. Suitable access is required to attach or adapt a 1.5” NPT female fitting to a valved fitting such as a corp valves, air blow offs, fire hydrants or tapped blind flanges.

7.3.3.2. The maximum sensor-to-sensor spacing for Hydrophone sensors is 2500ft (750m)

7.3.4. Vertical access is required to lower the sensor down from the surface. Angled or broken valve chamber are not suitable.

4.8B Page 16

7.3.5. The connection point must be free of dirt and debris and in good working order

7.3.6. Performance specifications are based on a sensor spacing of 330ft (100m)

7.3.7. Performance specifications assume that accurate information has been provided regarding and pipe location including locations of bends and elevation changes.

7.3.8. Performance specifications assume that accurate information regarding pipe type (material) and diameter has been provided.

7.3.9. Diameters may range from 1” to 120” (25mm to 3050mm) in diameter. Larger mains are possible but special consideration must be taken.

7.3.10. Leaks location accuracies depend on sensor spacing, pipe material consistency, and other factors, but are generally within 10 ft (3 m) of its actual position when accurate information for pipe type and diameter is provided.

7.3.11. Sensitivity to small leaks varies depending on pipe diameter and material, as well as sensor spacing and the presence of noise inside the pipe. Leaks as small as 2.5 GPM (9.5 l/m) can consistently be located, and leaks as small as 0.5 GPM (2 l/m) can be located under good conditions.

7.4. Condition Assessment Technical Specifications and Constraints

7.4.1. Acceptable pipe materials are: Pit Cast Iron, Spun Cast Iron, Steel, Ductile Iron, Asbestos Cement and Reinforced or Bar-wrapped Concrete

7.4.2. Surface mounted sensors can be magnetically attached to appurtenances such as line valves, hydrant secondary valves or to the top of the pipe at a maximum sensor-to-sensor spacing of 500ft (150m)

7.4.3. Longer sensor-to-sensor spacing will require the use of hydrophones

7.4.3.1. Suitable access is required to attach or adapt a 1.5” NPT female fitting to a valved fitting such as a corp valves, air blow offs, fire hydrants or tapped blind flanges.

7.4.3.2. The maximum sensor-to-sensor spacing for Hydrophone sensors is 1500ft (450m)

7.4.4. Vertical access is required to lower the sensor down from the surface. Angled or broken valve chamber are not suitable.

4.8B Page 17

7.4.5. For every location, there must be a local fitting where liquid temperature and pressure can be measured. Fittings include fire hydrants, pitot taps, sampling stations and other similar appurtenances.

7.4.6. The connection point must be free of dirt and debris and in good working order

7.4.7. Diameters may range from 1” to 60” (25mm to 1525mm) in diameter. Larger mains are possible but special consideration must be taken.

7.4.8. Concrete, Mortar and Bitumen linings are acceptable if the thickness is specified

7.4.9. PVC, PE and other plastic mains are not suitable for acoustic condition assessment.

7.4.10. Performance specifications are based on a sensor spacing of 330ft (100m)

7.4.11. Performance specifications assume that accurate information has been provided regarding and pipe location including locations of bends and elevation changes.

7.4.12. Performance specifications assume that accurate information regarding pipe type (material) and diameter has been provided.

7.4.13. Accuracy of average pipe wall thickness calculations varies depending on many factors, including the consistency of the pipe materials, accuracy of the design information provided, accuracy of the pipe alignment information provided, consistency of the fluid’s bulk modulus, and consistency of the water’s temperature. In most cases, accuracies shall fall within the following ranges:

7.4.13.1. For metallic mains, average minimum pipe wall thickness will be provided within 0.15” (3.8mm). For metallic mains with lining, this will be provided as an equivalent structural thickness.

7.4.13.2. For asbestos cement mains, the average minimum structural wall thickness will be provided within 0.15” (3.8mm)

7.4.13.3. For Reinforced and Bar-wrapped concrete mains, the average minimum structural stiffness will be provided within 7200 kpsi or 50Gpa

7.4.14. For liquids other than potable or raw water, a bulk modulus calibration must be performed when needed. Normally at the outset of testing and any other

4.8B Page 18

times during the testing when the bulk modulus may change (during a rain event for sewer force mains)

4.8B Page 19

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT ON FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY. Overview: On July 27, 2015, City Council approved the purchase of a 2.73‐acre property at 8048 Mississippi Lane (see

attached map). This large‐lot property contains a single‐family home.

On January 25, 2016, City Council approved the subdivision of the property into two lots. The house is to include

a 0.832‐acre lot (Lot 1) with the intent to resell. The remaining 2.78 acres (Out lot A) adjacent River Park also

contains 0.6 acres of land from vacating a portion of 81st Avenue. An additional .090 acres was gained through

the replatting process incorporating the original Sunkist Acres plat of 1914.

On February 8, 2016, the city put the house and .832‐acre lot at 8048 Mississippi Lane on the market for sale. On March 5, 2016, the City received a written offer from a buyer, contingent on City Council approval, for $425,000. The money from the sale of the property would reimburse the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) funds, which was used to purchase the house and park land. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: NA Attachments: 4.9A ORDINANCE






Resolution: N/A


Ordinance: FIRST READING

Attachments: 1


Item: Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of City Owned Property

479326v1

4.9A ORDINANCE Page 2

ORDINANCE #2016‐

ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CITY

OWNED PROPERTY

The City of Brooklyn Park Does Ordain: The City of Brooklyn Park owns the fee title to that certain .832 acre lot commonly known as 8048 Mississippi Lane in the City of Brooklyn Park and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Sunkist Acres 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (C/T # 1421470) (“Property”). The property is no longer needed for public purposes and the City desires to sell the property to Charles and Elizabeth Hanson so that the property can be returned to the tax rolls as more specifically described in City Resolution #2016‐67. The net proceeds from the sale of the Property shall be paid to the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) account of the City. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to convey the Property to Charles and Elizabeth Hanson. City staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all necessary and convenient steps to accomplish the intent of this Ordinance.

All actions shall be pursuant to Section 14.06 of the City Charter. The City Council finds that the

conveyance of the Property has no relationship or impact on the City’s comprehensive plan and therefore there is no need for the City’s Planning Commission to review and comment on the proposed conveyance.




Agenda Section: Public Hearings

Originating Department: Finance

Resolution: X

Prepared By: Alan Rolek, Finance Director

Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

3

Presented By: Alan Rolek, Finance Director

Item:

Public Hearing on Street Reconstruction Plan and Authorization for Issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION ______________, SECOND _______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐____ APPROVING A STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016A IN AN ESTIMATED ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $8,110,000. Overview: The 2016‐2020 Capital Improvement Plan adopted by the City Council includes the issuance of approximately $4,000,000 in bonds to finance 2016 street maintenance and reconstruction projects. To cover the cost of issuance, this amount needs to be increased to a maximum of $4,085,000. The City plans to issue Street Reconstruction bonds under the authority of Minnesota Statutes 475.58 Subd. 3(b). The bonds would be repaid through the dedicated use of utility franchise fees. The City must also adopt a Five Year Street Reconstruction Plan in accordance with this statute. The public hearing this evening is to receive public comment on the Street Reconstruction Plan and the issuance of Street Reconstruction bonds. Additionally, there is an opportunity to refinance current outstanding bonds Series 2005B, 2005C, 2005D and 2005E at a lower interest rate, thereby saving an estimated $133,700 in financing costs over the remaining term of the bonds. The total amount of bonds to be issued, including the Street Reconstruction Bonds and the refunding bonds, is estimated at $8,110,000. The Street Reconstruction bonds are subject to a reverse referendum. If a petition requesting a vote on the issuance of the Bonds, signed by voters equal to five percent (5%) of the votes cast in the last City general election, is filed with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the public hearing, the City may issue the Bonds only after obtaining approval of a majority of voters voting on the question of the issuance of the Bonds at an election. Following the public hearing and Council discussion, Council is requested to adopt Resolution #2016‐____ approving a street reconstruction plan and authorizing the issuance of General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A in an estimated original aggregate amount of $8,110,000.

5.1A Page 2 Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: Not issuing the bonds would deviate from the 2016‐2020 CIP and create a $4,000,000 gap in financing 2016 street projects. Franchise fees are not yet available to finance 2016 projects. Current and future franchise fees will be used to retire the debt. Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: There is a potential $4,000,000 gap in financing 2016 street projects if the bonds are not issued. In addition the City would not realize a refunding savings of $133,700. Attachments: 5.1A RESOLUTION 5.1B STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN 5.1C PRE‐SALE REPORT – EHLERS


RESOLUTION #2016‐

RESOLUTION APPROVING A STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2016A IN AN ESTIMATED

ORIGINAL AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $8,110,000

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:

Section 1A. Background; Street Reconstruction Financing. 1A.01. The City is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, subdivision 3b (the “Street Reconstruction Act”) to prepare a plan for street reconstruction in the City over the next five years that will be financed under the Street Reconstruction Act, including a description of the proposed work and estimated costs, and to issue general obligation bonds to finance the cost of street reconstruction activities described in the plan. 1A.02. Before the issuance of any bonds under the Street Reconstruction Act, the City is required to hold a public hearing on the plan and issuance of the bonds. 1A.03. Pursuant to the Street Reconstruction Act, the City, in consultation with its City engineer, has caused preparation of the “2016 Through 2020 Five‐Year Street Reconstruction Plan for the City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota,” dated May 9, 2016 (the “Plan”), which describes certain street reconstruction activities in the City for the years 2016 through 2020. The street reconstruction activities described in the Plan for 2016 are hereinafter referred to as the “Project.” 1A.04. The City has determined that it is in the best interests of the City to authorize the issuance and sale of general obligation street reconstruction bonds pursuant to the Street Reconstruction Act in the estimated original aggregate principal amount of $4,085,000 (the “Street Reconstruction Bonds”). The purpose of the Street Reconstruction Bonds is to finance the costs of the Project as described in the Plan. 1A.05. On this date, the City Council held a public hearing on the Plan and the issuance of the Street Reconstruction Bonds, after publication in the City’s official newspaper of a notice of public hearing at least 10 days but no more than 28 days before the date of the hearing.

Section 1B. Background; Refunding Prior Bonds.

1B.01. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (the “Debt Act”), to issue bonds to refund outstanding bonds of the City when determined by the City Council of the City to be necessary or desirable for the reduction of debt service cost or for the extension or adjustment of the maturities in relation to the resources available for their payment.

1B.02. The City proposes to issue bonds pursuant to the Debt Act to refund certain outstanding

obligations of the City, including the following (collectively, the “Prior Bonds”): (i) $6,045,000 General Obligation Park Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B, of which $1,330,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding; (ii) $2,605,000 General Obligation Recreational Facility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C, of which $785,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding; (iii) $2,710,000 General Obligation State Aid

Road Bonds, Series 2005D, of which $900,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding; and (iv) $3,345,000 General Obligation State Aid Road Bonds, Series 2005E, of which $920,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding.

1B.03. The City has determined that it is necessary and expedient that the City issue its general

obligation refunding bonds (the “Refunding Bonds”), in the principal amount of approximately $4,025,000 and apply the proceeds thereof, together with other funds of the City, to redeem and prepay the Prior Bonds.

Section 2. Plan Approved. 2.01. The City Council finds that the Plan will improve the City’s street system, which serves the interests of the City as a whole. 2.02. The Plan is approved in the form on file in City Hall.

Section 3. Bonds Authorized. 3.01. The City is authorized to issue the Street Reconstruction Bonds in the estimated original aggregate principal amount of $4,085,000, in order to finance the Project described in the Plan. 3.02. If a petition requesting a vote on the issuance of the Street Reconstruction Bonds, signed by voters equal to five percent (5%) of the votes cast in the last municipal general election, is filed with the City Clerk within 30 days after the date of the public hearing, the City may issue the Street Reconstruction Bonds only after obtaining approval of a majority of voters voting on the question at an election. The authorization to issue the Street Reconstruction Bonds is subject to expiration of the 30‐day period without the City’s receipt of a qualified petition under the Act, or if a qualified petition is filed, upon the approving vote of a majority of the voters voting on the question of issuance of the Street Reconstruction Bonds. 3.03. The City is authorized to issue the Refunding Bonds in the estimated aggregate principal amount of $4,025,000, in order to refund the Prior Bonds. 3.04. The Street Reconstruction Bonds and the Refunding Bonds shall collectively be designated “General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A” and issued in the estimated original aggregate principal amount of $8,110,000. City staff, its municipal advisor, and its legal counsel are authorized to take all actions needed to call for the sale of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A.

3.05. City staff are authorized and directed to take all other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.

(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) BR270‐1232 (SEL) 478559v.3

5.1A Page 4

2016 through 2020

Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan for the

City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

May 9, 2016

Prepared by:

Ehlers 3060 Centre Pointe Drive

Roseville, MN 55113

5.1B STREET RECONSTRUCTION PLAN Page 5

Ehlers Page 2

City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Five-Year Street Reconstruction Plan: 2016-2020

Introduction In 2002, the Minnesota State Legislature passed into law a bill which generally exempts city bonds issued under a street reconstruction program from the referendum requirements usually required for bonding expenditures.

PurposeStreet reconstruction is a major expenditure of city funds for the reconstruction of streets. Street reconstruction may include utility replacement and relocation, public safety street modifications, and other incidental costs, turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial public safety function, realignments, other modifications to intersect with state and county roads, and the local share of state and county road projects. Except in the case of turn lanes, safety improvements, realignments, intersection modifications, and local share of state and county road projects, street reconstruction does not include the portion of project costs allocable to widening a street or adding curbs and gutters where none previously existed. A Street Reconstruction Plan (SRP) is a document designed to anticipate street reconstruction expenditures and schedule them over a five-year period so that they may be purchased in the most efficient and cost effective method possible. A SRP allows the matching of expenditures with anticipated income. As potential expenditures are reviewed, the city considers the benefits, costs, alternatives and impact on operating expenditures.

The City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota (the “City”) believes the street reconstruction process is an important element of responsible fiscal management. Major capital expenditures can be anticipated and coordinated so as to minimize potentially adverse financial impacts caused by the timing and magnitude of capital outlays. This coordination of capital expenditures is important to the City in achieving its goals of adequate physical assets and sound fiscal management. In these financially difficult times good planning is essential for the wise use of limited financial resources.

The Street Reconstruction Plan is designed to be updated on an annual basis. In this manner, it becomes an ongoing fiscal planning tool that continually anticipated future capital expenditures and funding sources.

5.1B Page 6

Ehlers Page 3

The Street Reconstruction Planning ProcessThe street reconstruction planning process is as follows; the City Council authorizes the preparation of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Street Reconstruction Plan (SRP). The City staff is instructed to assemble the capital expenditures to be undertaken within the next five years. The City Council then reviews the expenditures according to their priority, fiscal impact, and available funding. From this information, a preliminary CIP and SRP are prepared. A public hearing is held to solicit input from citizens and other governmental units. Changes are made based on that input, and a final project list is established.

The City Council then prepares a plan based on the available funding sources. If general obligation bonding is necessary, the City works with its financial advisor to prepare a bond sale and repayment schedule. Over the life of the SRP, the individual capital expenditures can be made once the funding, including proceeds from the bond sales, becomes available.

In subsequent years, the process is repeated as expenditures are completed as new needs arise. Street reconstruction planning looks five years into the future.

For a city to use its authority to finance expenditures under Chapter 475.58, Subdivision 3b, it must meet the requirements provided therein. Specifically, the city council must approve the sale of street reconstruction bonds by a unanimous vote of its membership present. In addition, it must hold a public hearing for public input. Notice of such hearing must be published in the official newspaper of the city at least 10, but not more than 28 days prior to the date of the public hearing. The city council approves the SRP unanimously following the public hearing.

Although a referendum is not required, a reverse referendum is allowable. If a petition bearing the signatures of at least 5 percent of the votes cast in the last general election requesting a vote on the issuance of bonds is received by the municipal clerk within 30 days after the public hearing, a referendum vote on the issuance of the bonds shall be called (if a vote is taken and the referendum passes, the taxes would be levied on market value rather than tax capacity).

5.1B Page 7

Ehlers Page 4

Project SummaryThe street reconstruction project expenditures to be undertaken with this Street Reconstruction Plan: 2016-2020 (SRP) are limited to those listed in Appendix A. All other foreseeable capital expenditures within the City government will come through other means. The following street reconstruction expenditures have been submitted for inclusion in this SRP:

2016 Expenditures

$4,000,000

2017 Expenditures

4,300,000

2018 Expenditures

$3,250,000

2019 Expenditures

$2,150,000

2020 Expenditures

None at this time.

5.1B Page 8

Ehlers Page 5

Financing the Street Reconstruction Plan

The City’s Street Reconstruction Plan: 2016 - 2020 is based on the project cost and funding information contained within Project #4003: Local Street Reconstruction Plan on Page 104 of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan: 2016 – 2020. This expenditures proposed to be bond-funded under this SRP are the “Capital Improvement Bond” and “Special Assessment”-indicated amounts, totaling $13,700,000, but do not reflect the City’s total expected street reconstruction expenditures.

The City expects to fund its $4,000,000 of 2016 bond-funded costs, plus related issuance expenses, with a $4,085,000 portion of its upcoming General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A

In the financing of the Street Reconstruction Plan, one statutory limitation applies. Under Chapter 475, with few exceptions, cities cannot incur debt in excess of 3% of the assessor’s estimated market value for the City. The City’s estimated market value for Pay 2016 is $5,862,756,600. Therefore, the total amount of outstanding debt subject to the debt limit cannot exceed $175,882,698. As indicated below, the City currently uses 9.03% of its statutory debt limit, and will use 11.35% of its limit with the proposed Series 2016A Bonds. And, although debt financing is not yet anticipated for the 2017 – 2019 expenditures, issuing additional debt for those future costs would bring the City’s capacity use to 17.04%.

Pay 2016 Estimated Market Value 5,862,756,600

x 3% Statutory Debt Limit 3.00%

Pay 2016 Statutory Debt Capacity 175,882,698 Cumulative % of

Capacity % Used

less: Existing Debt Subject to Limit (15,880,000) 9.03% 9.03%

Net Statutory Debt Capacity 160,002,698 90.97%

less: Proposed 2016 Street Recon Bonds (4,085,000) 2.32% 11.35%

Net Statutory Debt Capacity 155,917,698

less: Potential 2017‐2020 Street Recon Bonds (10,000,000) 5.69% 17.04%

Net Statutory Debt Capacity 145,917,698

The City expects to review and update this Street Reconstruction Plan annually, as necessary and appropriate, in conjunction with its review of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, and will revise the SRP to reflect the specifics of any future street reconstruction debt financings.

5.1B Page 9

Ehlers Page 6

Appendix A

Project Description – Project #4003 of City CIP: 2016-2020

It is anticipated that the next phase of street reconstruction will be in the southwest corner of the city (see project map) and begin in 2016 and be completed in 2019 (approx 1.75 miles per year). These streets will be 39 to 51 years old at that time. The previous street reconstruction program focused on streets without concrete curb and gutter and seriously deficient storm sewer systems. With this program we will move into areas where the streets have concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer, however the bituminous surface and concrete curb will have deteriorated beyond a reasonable maintenance level. There will also be public and private utility repairs associated with this reconstruction. This reconstruction plan is scheduled in coordination with CIP Project #4001. As with the previous reconstruction program the target streets will be those where the maintenance costs and/or condition have risen to an unacceptable level and therefore it is most cost effective to reconstruct the entire roadway.

The City’s estimated schedule of events for its Series 2016A Bonds is as follows:

April 21, 2016 Public Hearing notice due to Sun Post;

April 25, 2016 City Council calls for May 9 Public Hearing on street reconstruction plan and related bond financing;

April 28, 2016 Sun Post publishes notice of Public Hearing;

May 2, 2016 Street reconstruction plan and bond materials available for review;

May 9, 2016 Public Hearing and Presale Meeting Presentation of street reconstruction plan and bond issue; Council approves resolution approving street reconstruction

plan and authorizing bond issue (must be unanimous); and Council approves resolution setting bond sale for June 27;

Week of May 23, 2016 Ehlers distributes official statement;

Week of June 6, 2016 Conference call with Standard & Poor’s for bond rating;

June 8, 2016 Expiration of 30-day reverse referendum window following May 9 Public Hearing;

June 27, 2016 Bond sale; Council approves resolution specifying final terms of and awarding bond to winning bidder.

Late July 2016 Bond closing; funds available to City.

5.1B Page 10

May 9, 2016

Pre-Sale Report for

City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

$8,110,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A

Prepared by:

Bruce Kimmel Senior Municipal Advisor

and

Jason Aarsvold Municipal Advisor

5.1C PRE-SALE REPORT - EHLERSPage 11

Executive Summary of Proposed Debt

Proposed Issue: $8,110,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016A (the Bonds)

Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing for the following two purposes:

1. General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds to fund streetimprovements identified in the City’s Street Reconstruction Plan:2016-2020. The City expects to pay debt service on this “new money”portion of the Bonds from a portion of the utility franchise fees thatthe City expects to collect over 13 years (2016-2028).

2. Current refundings of the City’s outstanding General ObligationBonds, Series 2005B, 2005C, 2005D, and 2005E, solely for net debtservice savings, with no extension of existing durations. The City willpay debt service on the refunding portions of the Bonds from the samerevenue sources used to pay the existing obligations.

Current Refunding of Series 2005B: The interest rate on the twomaturities proposed to be refunded is 4%. The refunding isexpected to reduce net interest expense by approximately $15,600over the next 1.5 years. The Net Present Value Benefit of therefunding is estimated to equal 1.13% of the refunded debt service.

Current Refunding of Series 2005C: The interest rate on the threematurities proposed to be refunded is 4%. The refunding isexpected to reduce net interest expense by approximately $21,150over the next 2.5 years. The Net Present Value Benefit of therefunding is estimated to equal 2.55% of the refunded debt service.

Current Refunding of Series 2005D: The interest rates on the fivematurities proposed to be refunded are 3.9% to 4.1%. Therefunding is expected to reduce net interest expense byapproximately $54,500 over the next 4.5 years. The Net PresentValue Benefit of the refunding is estimated to equal 5.22% of therefunded debt service.

Current Refunding of Series 2005E: The interest rates on the fivematurities proposed to be refunded are 3.9% to 4.1%. Therefunding is expected to reduce net interest expense byapproximately $42,500 over the next 4.5 years. The Net PresentValue Benefit of the refunding is estimated to equal 4.24% of therefunded debt service.

In aggregate, the four refundings are expected to reduce the City’snet interest expense by approximately $133,700 over the next 4.5years. The Net Present Value Benefit of the four refundings isestimated to equal 3.11% of the refunded debt service. Therefundings are considered to be current refundings as all fourexisting issues are callable (pre-payable) now.

5.1C Page 12

Authority: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter(s):

162 429 475

The Street Reconstruction portion of the Bonds, and the street improvements to be funded with this Bond purpose, are described in the City’s Street Reconstruction Plan: 2016 – 2020.

The Street Reconstruction portion of the Bonds will count against the City’s General Obligation debt capacity limit of 3% of estimated market value. After adding this new obligation, the City will have approximately 88% of its statutory debt limit unused and available for future obligations.

The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged.

Term/Call Feature: In total, the Bonds are being issued for a 10-year term, although the refunding portions will extend only 1.5 to 4.5 years, as noted above. Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2017 through 2026. Interest is payable every six months beginning February 1, 2017.

The Bonds maturing on and after February 1, 2024 will be subject to prepayment at the City’s discretion on February 1, 2023 or any date thereafter.

Bank Qualification: Because the City is expecting to issue no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt debt during the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as “bank qualified” obligations. Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in lower interest rates.

Rating: The City’s most recent bond issues were rated AA+ by Standard & Poor’s. The City will request a new rating for the Bonds.

Basis for Recommendation: Ehlers has based this recommended structure on our understanding of the City’s objectives for funding its street reconstruction projects, as well as for reducing its future net interest expense on existing obligations, and of the City revenue sources to be used for debt service on all Bond purposes.

Method of Sale/Placement: In order to obtain the lowest interest cost to the City, we will competitively bid the purchase of the Bonds from local and national underwriters/banks.

We have included an allowance for discount bidding equal to 1% of the principal amount of the issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and provides the winning bond underwriter with all or a portion of its compensation in the transaction. If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount, the unused allowance may be used to lower your borrowing amount.

Premium Bids: Under current market conditions, most investors in municipal bonds prefer “premium” pricing structures. A premium is achieved when the coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds the yield

5.1C Page 13

to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of the bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered “reoffering premium.” The amount of the premium varies, but it is not uncommon to see premiums for new issues in the range of 2.00% to 10.00% of the face amount of the issue. This means that an issuer with a $2,000,000 offering may receive bids that result in proceeds of $2,040,000 to $2,200,000.

For these Bonds, we have been directed to use the premium to reduce the size of the issue. Sale-day adjustments may slightly change the true interest cost of the original bid, either up or down.

Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that, other than the obligations proposed to be refunded by the Bonds, there are no other viable refunding opportunities at this time.

We will continue to monitor the market and call dates for the City’s outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities.

Continuing Disclosure: Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including this issue) and this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually as well as providing notices of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB”), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds, and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports.

Arbitrage Monitoring: Because the Bonds are tax-exempt securities/tax credit securities, the City must ensure compliance with certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules throughout the life of the issue. These rules apply to all gross proceeds of the issue, including initial bond proceeds and investment earnings in construction, escrow, debt service, and any reserve funds. How issuers spend bond proceeds and how they track interest earnings on funds (arbitrage/yield restriction compliance) are common subjects of IRS inquiries. Your specific responsibilities will be detailed in the Tax Certificate prepared by your Bond Attorney and provided at closing. You have retained Ehlers to assist you with compliance with these rules.

Risk Factors: Current Refunding: A portion of the Bonds is being issued for the purpose of refinancing existing City obligations, all of which are callable now. The new Bonds will not be prepayable until after the refunding portion has matured. This refunding, therefore, is being undertaken based in part on an assumption that the City does not expect to have future revenues to pay off this debt and that market conditions warrant the refinancing at this time.

Other Service Providers: This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service providers. This section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can coordinate their engagement on your behalf. Where you have previously used a particular firm to provide a service, we have assumed that you will continue that relationship. For services you have not previously required, we have identified a service provider. Fees charged by these service providers will be

5.1C Page 14

paid from proceeds of the obligation, unless you notify us that you wish to pay them from other sources. Our pre-sale bond sizing includes a good faith estimate of these fees, so their final fees may vary. If you have any questions pertaining to the identified service providers or their roles, or if you would like to use different service providers, please contact us.

Bond Attorney: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered

Paying Agent: U.S. Bank National Association

Rating Agency: Standard & Poor’s

This presale report summarizes our understanding of the City’s objectives for the structure and terms of this financing as of this date. As additional facts become known or capital markets conditions change, we may need to modify the structure and/or terms of this financing to achieve results consistent with the City’s objectives.

5.1C Page 15

Proposed Debt Issuance Schedule

Pre-Sale Review by City Council: May 9, 2016

Distribute Official Statement: Week of May 23, 2016

Conference with Rating Agency: Week of June 6, 2016

City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: June 27, 2016

Estimated Closing Date: July 27, 2016

Redemption Date for Series 2005B, C, D & E Bonds August 1, 2016

Attachments Sources and Uses of Funds

Proposed Debt Service Schedules

Refunding Savings Analysis

Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed with Bond Sale (to be prepared by Kennedy & Graven)

Ehlers Contacts Municipal Advisors: Bruce Kimmel (651) 697-8572

Jason Aarsvold (651) 697-8512

Disclosure Coordinator: Meghan Lindblom (651) 697-8549

Financial Analyst: Alicia Gage (651) 697-8551

The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the City Councilmembers at their home addresses or e-mailed for review prior to the sale date.

5.1C Page 16

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $8,110,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Issue Summary - New Money & Current Ref 2005BCDE Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps

Total Issue Sources And Uses

Dated 07/27/2016 | Delivered 07/27/2016

New Money -

Street

Reconstruction

Bonds

Current Ref

2005B

Current Ref

2005C

Current Ref

2005D

Current Ref

2005E

Issue

Summary

Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $4,085,000.00 $1,355,000.00 $800,000.00 $930,000.00 $940,000.00 $8,110,000.00

Total Sources $4,085,000.00 $1,355,000.00 $800,000.00 $930,000.00 $940,000.00 $8,110,000.00

Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%) 40,850.00 13,550.00 8,000.00 9,300.00 9,400.00 81,100.00

Costs of Issuance 39,792.23 13,199.14 7,792.84 9,059.19 9,156.60 79,000.00

Deposit to Project Construction Fund 4,000,000.00 - - - - 4,000,000.00

Deposit to Current Refunding Fund - 1,330,000.00 785,000.00 912,000.00 920,000.00 3,947,000.00

Rounding Amount 4,357.77 (1,749.14) (792.84) (359.19) 1,443.40 2,900.00

Total Uses $4,085,000.00 $1,355,000.00 $800,000.00 $930,000.00 $940,000.00 $8,110,000.00

Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Issue Summary | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 17


Debt Service Schedule

Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total

07/27/2016 - - - - -

02/01/2017 1,750,000.00 0.750% 44,255.83 1,794,255.83 1,794,255.83

08/01/2017 - - 36,731.25 36,731.25 -

02/01/2018 1,765,000.00 0.850% 36,731.25 1,801,731.25 1,838,462.50

08/01/2018 - - 29,230.00 29,230.00 -

02/01/2019 1,065,000.00 0.950% 29,230.00 1,094,230.00 1,123,460.00

08/01/2019 - - 24,171.25 24,171.25 -

02/01/2020 780,000.00 1.100% 24,171.25 804,171.25 828,342.50

08/01/2020 - - 19,881.25 19,881.25 -

02/01/2021 660,000.00 1.200% 19,881.25 679,881.25 699,762.50

08/01/2021 - - 15,921.25 15,921.25 -

02/01/2022 405,000.00 1.300% 15,921.25 420,921.25 436,842.50

08/01/2022 - - 13,288.75 13,288.75 -

02/01/2023 410,000.00 1.400% 13,288.75 423,288.75 436,577.50

08/01/2023 - - 10,418.75 10,418.75 -

02/01/2024 420,000.00 1.500% 10,418.75 430,418.75 440,837.50

08/01/2024 - - 7,268.75 7,268.75 -

02/01/2025 425,000.00 1.650% 7,268.75 432,268.75 439,537.50

08/01/2025 - - 3,762.50 3,762.50 -

02/01/2026 430,000.00 1.750% 3,762.50 433,762.50 437,525.00

Total $8,110,000.00 - $365,603.33 $8,475,603.33 -

Yield Statistics

Bond Year Dollars $27,715.11

Average Life 3.417 Years

Average Coupon 1.3191480%

Net Interest Cost (NIC) 1.6117681%

True Interest Cost (TIC) 1.6195782%

Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3135121%

All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 1.9232016%

IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.3191480%

Weighted Average Maturity 3.417 Years

Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Issue Summary | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 18

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $4,085,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 New Money - Street Reconstruction Bonds Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps



07/27/2016 - - - - -

02/01/2017 410,000.00 0.750% 26,161.22 436,161.22 436,161.22

08/01/2017 - - 24,055.00 24,055.00 -

02/01/2018 390,000.00 0.850% 24,055.00 414,055.00 438,110.00

08/01/2018 - - 22,397.50 22,397.50 -

02/01/2019 395,000.00 0.950% 22,397.50 417,397.50 439,795.00

08/01/2019 - - 20,521.25 20,521.25 -

02/01/2020 400,000.00 1.100% 20,521.25 420,521.25 441,042.50

08/01/2020 - - 18,321.25 18,321.25 -

02/01/2021 400,000.00 1.200% 18,321.25 418,321.25 436,642.50

08/01/2021 - - 15,921.25 15,921.25 -

02/01/2022 405,000.00 1.300% 15,921.25 420,921.25 436,842.50

08/01/2022 - - 13,288.75 13,288.75 -

02/01/2023 410,000.00 1.400% 13,288.75 423,288.75 436,577.50

08/01/2023 - - 10,418.75 10,418.75 -

02/01/2024 420,000.00 1.500% 10,418.75 430,418.75 440,837.50

08/01/2024 - - 7,268.75 7,268.75 -

02/01/2025 425,000.00 1.650% 7,268.75 432,268.75 439,537.50

08/01/2025 - - 3,762.50 3,762.50 -

02/01/2026 430,000.00 1.750% 3,762.50 433,762.50 437,525.00

Total $4,085,000.00 - $298,071.22 $4,383,071.22 -

Yield Statistics










Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | New Money - Street Recons | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 19

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $1,355,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005B Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps



07/27/2016 - - - - -

02/01/2017 660,000.00 0.750% 5,549.39 665,549.39 665,549.39

08/01/2017 - - 2,953.75 2,953.75 -

02/01/2018 695,000.00 0.850% 2,953.75 697,953.75 700,907.50

Total $1,355,000.00 - $11,456.89 $1,366,456.89 -

Yield Statistics










Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005B | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 20

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $1,355,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005B Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps

Debt Service Comparison

Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings

02/01/2017 665,549.39 667,298.53 676,600.00 9,301.47

02/01/2018 700,907.50 700,907.50 707,200.00 6,292.50

Total $1,366,456.89 $1,368,206.03 $1,383,800.00 $15,593.97

PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net)

Gross PV Debt Service Savings..................... 17,214.70

Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.314%(Bond Yield)..... 17,214.70

Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... (1,749.14)

Net Present Value Benefit $15,465.56

Net PV Benefit / $1,365,521.61 PV Refunded Debt Service 1.133%

Net PV Benefit / $1,330,000 Refunded Principal... 1.163%

Net PV Benefit / $1,355,000 Refunding Principal.. 1.141%

Refunding Bond Information

Refunding Dated Date 7/27/2016

Refunding Delivery Date 7/27/2016

Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005B | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 21

Brooklyn Park, MN $6,045,000 General Obligation Park Refunding Bonds, Series 2005B

Total Refunded Debt Service


02/01/2017 650,000.00 4.000% 26,600.00 676,600.00 676,600.00

08/01/2017 - - 13,600.00 13,600.00 -

02/01/2018 680,000.00 4.000% 13,600.00 693,600.00 707,200.00

Total $1,330,000.00 - $53,800.00 $1,383,800.00 -

Yield Statistics

Base date for Avg. Life & Avg. Coupon Calculation 7/27/2016



Weighted Average Maturity (Par Basis) 1.022 Years




Series 2005B GO Park Ref | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 22

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $800,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005C Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps



07/27/2016 - - - - -

02/01/2017 260,000.00 0.750% 3,483.22 263,483.22 263,483.22

08/01/2017 - - 2,432.50 2,432.50 -

02/01/2018 265,000.00 0.850% 2,432.50 267,432.50 269,865.00

08/01/2018 - - 1,306.25 1,306.25 -

02/01/2019 275,000.00 0.950% 1,306.25 276,306.25 277,612.50

Total $800,000.00 - $10,960.72 $810,960.72 -

Yield Statistics










Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005C | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 23

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $800,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005C Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps


Date Total P+I

Net New

D/S Old Net D/S Savings

02/01/2017 263,483.22 264,276.06 270,700.00 6,423.94

02/01/2018 269,865.00 269,865.00 276,200.00 6,335.00

02/01/2019 277,612.50 277,612.50 286,000.00 8,387.50

Total $810,960.72 $811,753.56 $832,900.00 $21,146.44




Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... (792.84)


Net PV Benefit / $816,537.65 PV Refunded Debt Service 2.545%

Net PV Benefit / $785,000 Refunded Principal... 2.647%

Net PV Benefit / $800,000 Refunding Principal.. 2.598%




Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005C | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 24

Brooklyn Park, MN $2,605,000 GO Recreational Facility Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2005C



02/01/2017 255,000.00 4.000% 15,700.00 270,700.00 270,700.00

08/01/2017 - - 10,600.00 10,600.00 -

02/01/2018 255,000.00 4.000% 10,600.00 265,600.00 276,200.00

08/01/2018 - - 5,500.00 5,500.00 -

02/01/2019 275,000.00 4.000% 5,500.00 280,500.00 286,000.00

Total $785,000.00 - $47,900.00 $832,900.00 -

Yield Statistics








Series 2005C GO Rec Fac R | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 25

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005D Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps



07/27/2016 - - - - -

02/01/2017 200,000.00 0.750% 4,575.72 204,575.72 204,575.72

08/01/2017 - - 3,726.25 3,726.25 -

02/01/2018 190,000.00 0.850% 3,726.25 193,726.25 197,452.50

08/01/2018 - - 2,918.75 2,918.75 -

02/01/2019 185,000.00 0.950% 2,918.75 187,918.75 190,837.50

08/01/2019 - - 2,040.00 2,040.00 -

02/01/2020 180,000.00 1.100% 2,040.00 182,040.00 184,080.00

08/01/2020 - - 1,050.00 1,050.00 -

02/01/2021 175,000.00 1.200% 1,050.00 176,050.00 177,100.00

Total $930,000.00 - $24,045.72 $954,045.72 -

Yield Statistics










Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005D | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 26

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $930,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005D Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps


Date Total P+I

Net New


02/01/2017 204,575.72 204,934.91 18,000.00 (186,934.91)

02/01/2018 197,452.50 197,452.50 212,490.00 15,037.50

02/01/2019 190,837.50 190,837.50 205,425.00 14,587.50

02/01/2020 184,080.00 184,080.00 198,270.00 14,190.00

02/01/2021 177,100.00 177,100.00 191,025.00 13,925.00

02/01/2022 - - 183,690.00 183,690.00

Total $954,045.72 $954,404.91 $1,008,900.00 $54,495.09




Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... (359.19)








Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005D | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 27

Brooklyn Park, MN $2,710,000 G.O. State Aid Road Bonds, Series 2005D



10/01/2016 - - 18,000.00 18,000.00 -

02/01/2017 - - - - 18,000.00

04/01/2017 180,000.00 3.900% 18,000.00 198,000.00 -

10/01/2017 - - 14,490.00 14,490.00 -

02/01/2018 - - - - 212,490.00

04/01/2018 180,000.00 3.950% 14,490.00 194,490.00 -

10/01/2018 - - 10,935.00 10,935.00 -

02/01/2019 - - - - 205,425.00

04/01/2019 180,000.00 4.000% 10,935.00 190,935.00 -

10/01/2019 - - 7,335.00 7,335.00 -

02/01/2020 - - - - 198,270.00

04/01/2020 180,000.00 4.050% 7,335.00 187,335.00 -

10/01/2020 - - 3,690.00 3,690.00 -

02/01/2021 - - - - 191,025.00

04/01/2021 180,000.00 4.100% 3,690.00 183,690.00 -

02/01/2022 - - - - 183,690.00

Total $900,000.00 - $108,900.00 $1,008,900.00 -

Yield Statistics








Series 2005D GO State-Aid | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 28

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $940,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005E Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps



07/27/2016 - - - - -

02/01/2017 220,000.00 0.750% 4,486.28 224,486.28 224,486.28

08/01/2017 - - 3,563.75 3,563.75 -

02/01/2018 225,000.00 0.850% 3,563.75 228,563.75 232,127.50

08/01/2018 - - 2,607.50 2,607.50 -

02/01/2019 210,000.00 0.950% 2,607.50 212,607.50 215,215.00

08/01/2019 - - 1,610.00 1,610.00 -

02/01/2020 200,000.00 1.100% 1,610.00 201,610.00 203,220.00

08/01/2020 - - 510.00 510.00 -

02/01/2021 85,000.00 1.200% 510.00 85,510.00 86,020.00

Total $940,000.00 - $21,068.78 $961,068.78 -

Yield Statistics










Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005E | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 29

Brooklyn Park, Minnesota $940,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2016 Current Ref 2005E Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 15bps


Date Total P+I

Net New


02/01/2017 224,486.28 223,042.88 233,335.00 10,292.12

02/01/2018 232,127.50 232,127.50 238,285.00 6,157.50

02/01/2019 215,215.00 215,215.00 224,990.00 9,775.00

02/01/2020 203,220.00 203,220.00 211,790.00 8,570.00

02/01/2021 86,020.00 86,020.00 93,690.00 7,670.00

Total $961,068.78 $959,625.38 $1,002,090.00 $42,464.62




Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... 1,443.40








Series 2016A GO Bonds CR | Current Ref 2005E | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 30

Brooklyn Park, MN $3,345,000 G.O. State Aid Road Bonds, Series 2005E



02/01/2017 215,000.00 3.900% 18,335.00 233,335.00 233,335.00

08/01/2017 - - 14,142.50 14,142.50 -

02/01/2018 210,000.00 3.950% 14,142.50 224,142.50 238,285.00

08/01/2018 - - 9,995.00 9,995.00 -

02/01/2019 205,000.00 4.000% 9,995.00 214,995.00 224,990.00

08/01/2019 - - 5,895.00 5,895.00 -

02/01/2020 200,000.00 4.050% 5,895.00 205,895.00 211,790.00

08/01/2020 - - 1,845.00 1,845.00 -

02/01/2021 90,000.00 4.100% 1,845.00 91,845.00 93,690.00

Total $920,000.00 - $82,090.00 $1,002,090.00 -

Yield Statistics








Series 2005E GO Imp Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 5/ 3/2016 | 10:26 AM

5.1C Page 31



Date Total P+I Net New D/S Old Net D/S Savings

02/01/2017 1,358,094.61 1,359,552.38 1,198,635.00 (160,917.38)

02/01/2018 1,400,352.50 1,400,352.50 1,434,175.00 33,822.50

02/01/2019 683,665.00 683,665.00 716,415.00 32,750.00

02/01/2020 387,300.00 387,300.00 410,060.00 22,760.00

02/01/2021 263,120.00 263,120.00 284,715.00 21,595.00

02/01/2022 - - 183,690.00 183,690.00

Total $4,092,532.11 $4,093,989.88 $4,227,690.00 $133,700.12




Contingency or Rounding Amount.................... (1,457.77)


Net PV Benefit / $4,131,526.09 PV Refunded Debt Service 3.109%

Net PV Benefit / $3,935,000 Refunded Principal... 3.265%

Net PV Benefit / $4,025,000 Refunding Principal.. 3.192%


Refunding Dated Date


Aggregate | 5/ 4/2016 | 10:31 AM

5.1C Page 32




Agenda Section: General Action Items


Resolution: X


Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

4


Item:

Approve MOU for Joint Master Planning for Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park/Environmental Area and Grant Letter of Support and Joint Applications for LAWCON Grant with Three Rivers Park District

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION ______________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION #2016‐_____ APPROVING MOU FOR JOINT MASTER PLANNING FOR COON RAPIDS DAM REGIONAL PARK/ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND GRANT LETTER OF SUPPORT AND JOINT APPLICATIONS FOR LAWCON GRANT WITH THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT. Overview: On April 6, 2015, staff discussed with City Council, Three Rivers Park District’s interest in partnering with the City of Brooklyn Park on a joint planning process for the Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and the City’s Environmental Nature Area, immediately west and adjacent to the park. This partnership would provide an opportunity to reach out to groups who have not historically used Coon Rapids Dam Regional Parks. This collaborative planning process would leverage the resources and expertise of both agencies, while addressing the priorities identified within the Recreation and Parks Master Plan for development of “unique parks” and expanding cultural and environmental education opportunities within the community. Council expressed support moving forward within this planning effort. In January of 2016, staff and representatives from Three Rivers Park District presented the outcomes of Phase I of the Public Engagement process and findings for the Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park/Environmental Nature Area Joint Master Planning process. City Council provided feedback as to the suggested new park name, vision, goals and big ideas that staff was exploring. On April 4, staff presented a drafted Concept Plan for the joint park master plan for Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and Environmental Nature Area Park. City Council provided feedback and was looking for further details and description as to park features. On April 13 and April 14, 2016, two neighborhood meetings were held at the Community Activity Center, for which a post card notice of the meeting was sent to five Brooklyn Park neighborhoods adjacent to the parks (River, Riverview, River North, Eidem and Willowstone). On Monday, May 2, staff provided to City Council additional details and examples of like features being discussed for the park and provided a summary of comments from the two neighborhood meetings.

7.1 Page 2 On Thursday, May 5, staff from Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) presented to their Park Commission a revised concept plan that took into consideration comments from the neighborhood meetings. The updated concept plan will be presented to City Council, along with TRPD Commissioner comments. Presentation and Action to include:

Feedback on the revised drafted concept plan, as presented, prior to moving forward on Phase III of the community engagement process;

Approval of MOU for continuation of the Joint Master Planning between Three Rivers Park District and the City of Brooklyn Park for Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and Environmental Nature Area;

Approve Letter of Support for Three Rivers Park District’s application of the Urban Parks Campaign Grant in support of planning and developing for improving floodplain forest, pond, and stream habitat within park; and

Approval of joint application with Three Rivers Park District for a National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) Grant to include allocation of $175,000 of the approved CIP funds as part of the required financial match for LAWCON Grant application.

Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider:

Does the MOU for continuation of the Joint Master Planning between Three Rivers Park District and the City of Brooklyn Park for Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and Environmental Nature Area meet the interest of the Council?

Does the City Council see the benefit to leveraging grant dollars $175,000 in support of the joint application for the LAWCON grant?


The MOU, as presented, only commits the City to continuation of the Joint Master Planning process, to include: 1) continuation of Phase III of the community engagement process to further refine the concept plan; 2) to refine the plan through design development; and 3) to provide cost estimates for implementation and development of the plan.

As part of the 2017 CIP, the City Council allocated $200,000 in support of the Joint Master Planning process for the Environmental Nature Area and Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park with TRPD. A joint application that represents a commitment of dollars and partnership between the City and TRPD will significantly better the opportunity to leverage available grant dollars.

Attachments: 7.1A RESOLUTION 7.1B MOU 7.1C LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR URBAN PARK CAMPAIGN GRANT 7.1D LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR JOINT APPLICATION FOR LAWCON GRANT APPLICATION


RESOLUTION #2016‐

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MOU FOR JOINT MASTER PLANNING FOR COON RAPIDS DAM

REGIONAL PARK/ENVIRONMENTAL AREA AND GRANT LETTER OF SUPPORT AND JOINT APPLICATIONS FOR LAWCON GRANT WITH THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) is the owner and operator of Coon Rapids Dam

Regional Park located on the Mississippi River and within the City of Brooklyn Park; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park is the owner and operator of the Environmental Nature Area Park

(100.25 acres), a park adjacent and across West Mississippi River Road to Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park; and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2015, the TRPD expressed interest in partnering with the City of Brooklyn Park on

a joint park planning process for future improvements to Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and the City’s Environmental Nature Area; and

WHEREAS, the partnership between the City and TRPD is to include a community engagement process

that provides opportunity to reach out to groups who have not historically used Coon Rapids Dam Regional Parks; and

WHEREAS, the collaborative planning process would leverage the resources and expertise of both

agencies, while addressing the priorities identified within the City’s Recreation and Parks Master Plan for development of “unique parks” and expanding cultural and environmental education opportunities within the community; and

WHEREAS, the City and TRPD are in agreement to continue to collaboratively work to develop a Joint

Master Plan for the TRPD Coon Rapids Regional Park, and the City’s Environmental Nature Area. This planning process is to include development of a joint park concept plan and further refinement of park plan to include design development, including cost estimates and recommended phased development.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to approve the

MOU for Joint Master Planning for Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park/Environmental Nature Area; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to accept the grant letter of support for the Urban Parks Campaign grant; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Park to approve the joint application for LAWCON grant with THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT to include a $175,000 grant match contribution from the City of Brooklyn Park.

7.1B MOU Page 4

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK

AND

THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT

THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING made the 9th day of May 2016 by and between the City of

Brooklyn Park (“City”) and Three Rivers Park District (“TRPD”).

WHEREAS, the TRPD is the owner and operator of Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park located on the Mississippi River and within the City of Brooklyn Park; and

WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park is the owner and operator of the Environmental Nature Area Park (100.25 acres), a park adjacent and across West Mississippi River Road to Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park; and

WHEREAS, on April 6, 2015, the TRPD expressed interest in partnering with the City of Brooklyn Park on a joint park planning process for future improvements to Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park and the City’s Environmental Nature Area; and

WHEREAS, the partnership between the City and TRPD, to include a community engagement process that provides opportunity to reach out to groups who have not historically used Coon Rapids Dam Regional Parks; and

WHEREAS, the collaborative planning process would leverage the resources and expertise of both agencies, while addressing the priorities identified within the City’s Recreation and Parks Master Plan for development of “unique parks” and expanding cultural and environmental education opportunities within the community; and

WHEREAS, the City and TRPD are in agreement to continue to collaboratively work to develop a Joint Master Plan for the TRPD Coon Rapids Regional Park, and the City’s Environmental Nature Area. This planning process is to include development of a joint park concept plan and further refinement of park plan to include design development, including cost estimates and recommended phased development.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City and TRPD deem it mutually advantageous to set forth the general details that should constitute an agreement. The terms of this MOU shall apply; except where modified by a supplemental agreement. The terms of the agreement to include: Three Rivers Park District to:

1. Be the lead planning agency for the Joint Master Plan process of both Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park

and Environmental Nature Area;

2. Be the agency that enters into, and manages any outside consultants deemed necessary for concept

and design development of the Joint Master Planning process;

3. Provide to the City, with prior approval, documentation as to costs associated to the City’s

participation in the Joint Master Planning process. It is understood that staff will be required to follow

the City’s approval process for any financial commitment for joint planning efforts.

4. Provide, in partnership with City staff, periodic updates as to timelines and planning process, to include

City Council Work Sessions or other Council presentations as deemed necessary.

7.1B Page 5 City of Brooklyn Park to:

1. Provide guidance and staff support for community outreach and engagement for joint master planning

process;

2. Provide a staff person to be the point contact to TRPD project manager. Staff to participate in planning

process and provide necessary historic land and property documentation, as needed, to ensure

accurate planning and ownership of property;

3. Allocation of financial support for conceptual design and design development. It is understood that

the City currently has allocated $200,000 within it 2016 Capital Improvement Program for the Joint

Master Planning. Any further commitment of resources will have to be presented and approved by

City Council.

CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT

By: _________________________ By: __________________________________

Jeffrey J. Lunde, Mayor John Gunyou, Chairman

Apri KellyThre3000Plym RE:

Dear The appliand ethe MOvermastThe with visioImprbenelocatspec It is Sinc JodyDireCity Cc:

il 26, 2016

y Grissman,ee Rivers Par0 Xenium Lamouth, MN 5

Letter of Applicati

r Grant Revi

following isication for theducation spMississippi Rr the last yeater plan for Cdraft masterthe Mississi

on to provideroving the flefits the Misstion within tifically, the

with great h

erely,

y Yungers ctor, Recreaof Brooklyn

Jay StroeJeff Lund

Director of rk District ane 55422

f Support forion Coon Ra

iew Board,

s a letter of she Urban Papace within tRiver Nationar the City oCoon Rapidsr plan envisioippi River ane opportunitiloodplain forsissippi Rivethe park to indynamic Mi

honor to prov

ation and Parn Park, MN

ebel, City Mde, Brooklyn

f Planning

r Three Riverapids Dam R

upport fromarks Campaigthe Coon Ranal Recreatiof Brooklyn Ps Dam Regioons the parknd its dynamies within threst, pond, aner and the Mntroducing sississippi Riv

vide this lette

rks

anager n Park Mayo

7.1C

rs Park DistrRegional Park

m the City of gn Grant. Sp

apids Dam Ron Area (MNPark and Thronal Park anks to be a locmic environmhe communitnd stream ha

MNRRA. In chool age chver ecosyste

er of support

or

C LETTER OF

rict applicatik: Outdoor L

Brooklyn Papecifically, in

Regional ParkNRRA). ree Rivers Pd the adjace

cal, regional ment. This prty that are “Uabitats; and aaddition, thehildren and tem.

t on behalf o

SUPPORT F

ion to the UrLearning Lab

ark for the Tn its efforts tk, located wi

Park District nt Brooklyn

l and state-wroposed projUnique. Uniassociated we proposed ethe general p

of the City o

OR URBAN P

rban Parks Cb and Educa

Three Riversto develop aithin the des

have partnern Park Envirowide gatewayjects will helited. And yetwater qualityeducation spapublic to the

f Brooklyn P

PARK CAMPA

Campaign Gration Space

Park Districan outdoor lesignated bou

red to develoonmental Nay for everyonlp achieve tht Undiscovery within the pace has beenwonders of

Park.

AIGN GRANTPage 6

rant

ct’s earning lab ndaries of

op a joint ature Area. ne to conneche City’s red”. park directlyn a critical f nature, and

T 6

ct

y

Apri KellyThre3000Plym RE:

Dear The Consdesig OvermastThe connwill yet UA su

In suRapiletter Sinc JodyDireBroo Cc:

il 26, 2016

y Grissman,ee Rivers Par0 Xenium Lamouth, MN 5

Letter of Coon RaWalk

r Grant Revi

following isservation Fugnated boun

r the last yeater plan for Cdraft master

nect with thehelp achieve

Undiscoveredummary of th

Improvinand ADA

Creating to teachininteractiv

Creating park: vistprovide e

upport of thiids Dam Regr of support

erely,

y Yungers ctor, Recrea

oklyn Park, M

Jay StroeJeff Lund

7.1D LETTER

Director of rk District ane 55422

f Support forpids Dam R

iew Board,

s a letter in suund Grant, todaries of the

ar the City oCoon Rapidsr plan envisioe Mississippie the City’s vd”. he planned im

ng access to A accessible

an ADA accng students ave manner. an ADA acctas across theducational o

s proposal thgional Park/Eon behalf of

ation and ParMN

ebel, City Mde, Mayor

R OF SUPPO

f Planning

r Land and WRegional Park

upport of theo include impe Mississippi

f Brooklyn Ps Dam Regioons this join River and itvision to pro

mprovement

the Mississiproute directlcessible outdabout river e

cessible treehe natural, unopportunitie

he City of BrEnvironmenf the City of

rks Departm

anager

RT FOR JOIN

Water Conserk: Mississipp

e Three Riveprovements i River Natio

Park and Thronal Park annt-park to be ts dynamic eovide opport

ts includes:

ppi River inly to the Rivdoor learningecology, wat

e canopy walndeveloped ps associated

rooklyn Parkntal Nature Af Brooklyn P

ent

NT APPLICAT

rvation Fundpi River Acc

ers Park Disto the Coon onal Recreat

ree Rivers Pd the adjacea local, regi

environmenttunities withi

cluding a nover’s edge, ang lab (teachiter quality, a

lkway to mimportions of thwith birds, r

k is committArea park devark.

TION FOR LA

d Grant Appcess, Outdoo

trict’s applicRapids Dam

tion Area (M

Park District nt Brooklynional and sta. This propoin the comm

on-motorizednd proposeding space) aland the cultu

mic the persphe park and raptors, the

ting $175,00velopment.

WCON GRA

plication or Learning L

cation to them Regional PMNRRA).

have partnern Park Enviroate-wide gatosed projects

munity that ar

d boat launchd outdoor lealong the Mis

ural significa

pective a birto the Missilayers of the

00 to the joinIt is with gr

NT APPLICAT

Lab and Tree

e Land and WPark located

red to develoonmental Nateway for evs, as describre “Unique.

h and tempoarning lab. ssissippi Rivance of the R

rd or raptor hissippi Rivere forest, and

nt planning freat honor to

TION Page 7

e Canopy

Water within the

op a joint ature Area. veryone to bed below, United. And

orary parking

ver dedicatedRiver in an

has of the r and similar.

for the Coono provide this

7

d

g

d

s

City Manager’s Proposed Action: MOTION _____________, SECOND ______________, TO APPOINT MARK NOLEN TO THE RECREATION AND PARKS ADVISORY COMMISSION EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY FOR THE BALANCE OF A TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2018. Overview:

A Recreation and Parks Advisory Commissioner, James Williams, resigned on April 20. On February 22, the Council interviewed applicants to fill upcoming commission openings due to terms ending April 1 and the appointments were made on March 14. After reviewing the voting forms, staff contacted Mr. Nolen, who interviewed for the Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission but was not appointed, and he is still interested and available to serve on the commission. Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: N/A




Agenda Section: General Action Items


Resolution: N/A

Prepared By:


Ordinance: N/A

Attachments:

N/A

Presented By: Mayor Jeffrey Lunde

Item: Appointment of Commissioner to the Recreation and Parks Advisory Commission

May 9, 2016 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING...

Documents

Transcript of May 9, 2016 Brooklyn Park Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 5200 85th Avenue North REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING...