HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 04-09 CCM Regular Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 9, 1979
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefier, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott. Also present was City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Attorney Richard Schieffer,
Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund,
City Clerk Al Lindman, Building Inspector Andy Alberti, and Administrative Assistant
Mary Har
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered -by Pastor Backie of Brooklyn Center Evangelical Free Church.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 26, 1979 6 SPECIAL SESSION MARCH 30, 1979
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of March 26, 1979 as submitted. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Kuefler asked that the minutes of March 30 be corrected to show that
Corrneilmemher Kiiefl.er and Councilmember Lhotka aid not vole ou Lau LCSUiuLivu b-z�causc
they were not present at the special session. There was a motion by Councilmember
Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes as corrected.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Fignar and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed. Councilmembers Kuefler and Lhotka abstained because they
were not present at the - meeting.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose - of the Open Forum session. The
Mayor recognized Mr. Dick Peterson of 5835 Aldrich Avenue North. He explained he
was an ecologist and an environmentalist and was concerned with the problem of Dutch
elm disease, particularly negligence in removing diseased trees. He stated the law
mandates that all dead and dying elm wood be properly disposed of by the 1st of April
or a penalty of $500 or 90 days imprisonment can be imposed. He stated there were
several trees at River Ridge Park, specifically trees numbered 3, 4, 5, 5X, and 5XX
which are diseased and should have been removed. He noted he had taken pictures of
the beetles in the diseased trees. He noted citizens are fined if their trees are
not removed and the City should take care of their responsibility in removing those
trees. Mr. Peterson suggested he would volunteer to donate 25 hours of his time to
.remove trees and would also sign any liability waivers for the City because he felt
it was extremely important those trees be removed. He stated if he could not get
those trees removed through this approach he would go elsewhere for recourse.
The City Manager replied he did not know why those trees had not been removed because
it was the City's practice to remove diseased elms on City property as soon as possible.
The City Manager stated he would check on this problem immediately and the trees would
be removed. He noted he would be in touch with Mr. Peterson as soon as he had infor-
mation as to when the trees would be taken down.
4 -9 -79 -1-
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Vince Kirsch of 1200 67th Avenue North. Mr. Kirsch
stated he was attending the Open Forum session to speak about handicapped problems
particularly as they relate to parking. He noted he was handicapped himself although
it was not immediately obvious. He made several suggestions. They were as follows:
first, the handicapped parking within the City should be brought to code, second,
assistance is needed in attempting to contact the police when there are handicapped
parking violations, third, the parking fine for violation of handicapped parking is
now $10 and the fine should be increased in order to further discourage people from
parking in the handicapped zone; fourth, he suggested some arrangements should be
made with the Police Department to allow drivers who are unloading or picking up
handicapped passengers to park in the yellow zone for approximately five minutes
while unloading or loading handicapped passengers.
The City Manager explained the *City does have a Human Rights Commission and these,
concerns would be forwarded to the Human Rights Commission.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Gerald Roemer of 4007 Joyce Lane, who stated he was sub-
mitting to the Council a petition which read as follows "we the undersigned residents
and homeowners of the above mentioned and immediately adjacent areas, hereby petition
the City of Brooklyn Center, its Mayor and City Council to ban all parking of vehicles
on both sides of the street, 24 hours a day, on France Avenue North from 61st Avenue
North to 63rd Avenue North. The problem has become so great that we are now extremely
concerned with the safety of our homes and lives, due to the inaccessibility of our
area to fire trucks and life support equipment because of cars parked.on both sides of
the above mentioned street, narrowing it to barely one lane ".
I
Mr. Roemer stated the problem was caused by the residents of the Ewing Square apart-
ments parking in the street. He stated there was adequate parking in the back of.
the E e :4 g Sqj re annri-mAntc }% „t_ thp rpgideTMs have chosen to park on the street _
because the front door is more easily accessible from the street than the back door
is from the parking lot. Mr. Roemer stated the neighborhood was further concerned
with the number of children riding bicycles and playing in the area because, with
the number of cars parked on the street, it is almost impossible to see those children.
Councilmember Fignar stated many of the people in the neighborhood had been in contact
with him. He questioned whether the problem was caused because the parking lot for
Ewing Square did not have a hard surface on it and, therefore, the residents were
not parking there. Mr. Roemer stated the surface was a gravel surface and will hold
cars without any problem.
Mr. Roemer stated the petition contained 200 signatures from people in the area who
*,cant a ban on parking.
Councilmember Scott questioned whether all of the residents on France between 61st
and 63rd had signed the petition. Mr. Roemer commented all had signed the petition
and were aware that they too would be prohibited from parking on she street but
found that was necessary.
The City Manager stated he would investigate this problem further and would be in
touch with Mr. Roemer in the near future.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Frank Barry of 7119 Dallas Road. Mr. Barry stated last
spring there was indiscriminate spraying of pesticides by the Brooklyn Center Park
and Recreation Department in the area of Riverdale Park. This indiscriminate
spraying affected many trees and shrubs in the area includi.ng,all of the trees on
Mr. Barry's property. The leaves from the trees turned brown and shriveled.
4 -9 -79 -2-
The trees definitely showed signs of chemical injury. Mr. Barry noted he had been
in contact with the State Department of Agriculture and they confirmed the chemical
injury. Mr. Barry noted he had been in contact with the Park and Recreation Depart-
ment and the records show that on May 19, the spraying of LD 69• occurred between
5:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. He explained in questioning representatives from the
State Department of Agriculture he was informed that the damage could only have
been done on an extremely hot day with a considerable south wind, with more than
five gallons of pesticide.
He stated the greenery had been wiped out and he felt the park was recklessly
over sprayed. Mr. Barry suggested he was concerned with this indiscriminate
spraying.
The City Manager na s with the problem that Mr. Barry was speaking
about. He nti t enter's equipment had been inspected by the Depart
ment of Agr on c .fit up to standard but it appears that because of warmer
temperatures, the chemical in the spray, so to speak, exploded after application
and there was a drift which occurred. The City Manager noted he too was concerned
with this sort of a problem and the City investigated the purchase of another type
of equipment. Since last spring, the City has purchased an emulsive type sprayer
which encapsulates the weed killer and should solve the problem. He explained that
the people who sprayed last spring were licensed sprayers and had been doing the
spraying for the City of Brooklyn Center for several years. This type of problem
had not occurred in the past and it is difficult to explain exactly what the
conditions were that caused this drifting to occur. The City Manager noted the
new equipment will reduce the opportunity for this drifting because of encapsulating
the weed killer. The City Manager further explained Brooklyn Center's insurance
company had been contacted about the problem and a settlement would be finalized
i t he accoccor3. Tlio rity. Mnnngpr invit Mr. Barry
UL 'ally U411CL LC51:UC111.5 Lu l:VillC auu l7icw L11C ttcw cYulraucu� �� �u y .... y� 4•
The Mayor recognized Mr. Phil Cohen of 5302 Humboldt Avenue North. Mr. Cohen
explained he had taken a new position as part of Senator Durenberger's staff to
work as liaison between local government and federal government. He will be
working with task force groups which will be working on such issues of interest
to local government as general revenue sharing, community development and other
topics of interest to municipalities. He is interested in receiving input from
municipalities as to how various legislation will affect cities and also is
interested in receiving creative ideas from municipalities as to how they would
like various problems handled. Mr. Cohen suggested he would be willing to come
back at the invitation of the Council and answer any questions which the Council
might wish to address.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address
the Council as part of the Open Forum; there being none, the Mayor proceeded with
the rest of the meeting.
APPOINTMENTS
The Mayor noted he would like to consider an item which was not on the agenda,
that being an appointment to the Housing Commission. Councilmember Fignar explained
he and the Chair of the Housing Commission had spoken with Lowell Ainas of 7043
Perry Avenue North ' and -were recommending his appointment to the Brooklyn Center
Housing Commission. He noted Mr. Ainas is currently employed as a staff engineer
for Stromm Engineering Corporation. Councilmember Fignar called the Council's
attention.to the application and resume submitted by Mr. Ainas.
4 -9 -79 -3-
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
appoint Mr. Lowell Ainas as a Commissioner to the Housing Commission. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuef ler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Ainas was present at the Council meeting to meet the Council.
RESOLUTIONS �)
The City Manager introduced a resolution accepting bids for furnishing and installing
a telephone communications system for City Hall. He explained the telephone system_
for City Hall was approved as part of the 1979 Budget. He recommended the bid of
Hauenstein & Burmeister, Inc. in the amount of $44,308 for furnishing and installing
a telephone communications system for City Hall be accepted: He noted this resolution
was deferred at the March 26, 1979 City Council meeting, pending the dissemination of
additional information to the Council.
The Mayor questioned the representative from Hauenstein & Burmeister regarding a
clarification of who would be charged for repairs on the system, whether it be the
City of Brooklyn Center, Hauenstein & Burmeister, or Northwestern Bell because of
the trunk lines. Charles Hatfield, representative from Hauenstein & Burmeister,
explained they did recommend a policy for dealing with problems. It is recommended
the City call Hauenstein & Burmeister if a problem arises and they.will diagnose
what the problem is. If the problem is Hauenstein & Burmeister's problem, the
repair would be covered as part of the maintenance contract. If the problem
was diagnosed as Northwestern Bell's problem, Hauenstein & Burmeister would contact
Northwestern Bell as to the problem and discuss it in technical terms and it would
be Northwestern Bell's responsibility to take care of the problem. Mr. Hatfield
.. .� +- R.,l 1 1 o ---'kl — then i t can7.tl a
any i.. ...��_.. L _
be title city's charge. Mr. aariieia noted i= Gtle ZeC:UtluuCL►ded was ', �M w��+
that should not happen.
Councilmember Lhotka questioned what the Hauenstein & Burmeister maintenance contract
includes. Mr. Hatfield responded the contract includes repairs, periodic upkeep on
apparatus, internal cabling, internal cabinets, in other words, the maintenance
contract is all inclusive.
Councilmember Lhotka asked Mr. Hatfield to again explain maintenance cost. Mr.
Hatfield responded the cost for the maintenance cost was guaranteed during the
second year of the contract. Mr. Hatfield stated the City could also choose two
other options for maintenance one being a time and material charge or the second
option would be one in which Hauenstein & Burmeister would train the City to
maintain their own system.
Mayor Nyquist stated he had spoken with representatives from Northwestern Bell and
had invited them to make a short presentation at this .evening's Council meeting.
Mr. Ron Barry, the Account Representative from Northwestern Bell for government,
was present to make the presentation, accompanied by Mr. Jack Foster and one other
representative from Northwestern Bell. Mr. Barry explained he wished to show a
20 minute audio visual presentation which would give some background information
on the Bell system, speak to the objectives as noted by the City, explain the
system which Bell proposes, explain the benefits which accrue by staying with
the Bell system and finally to, answer any questions which the Council might have.
Mr. Barry explained he had seen several cost comparisons between the system which
Hauenstein & Burmeister was bidding and the system which Bell proposed. He stated
he had come up with a different set of figures which can be explained as follows:
under the Siemans system (Hauenstein & Burmeister) the base bid is $43,871, extra
4 -9 -79 -4-
extra equipment for $437, maintenance for $7,459, insurance for $900, and data lines
( LOGIS) for $2,166 for a total of $54,833. Compared to that the Dimension system
will cost $63,496. Mr. Barry noted the cost difference of five years between the
two systems would be $8,663. Councilmember Kuefler clarified that the Hauenstein &
Burmeister system was the system with key phones and was the system as speced,
whereas, the Dimension system was the system proposed by Northwestern Bell and was
not the system which meets the specifications as written by the City. Councilmember
Kuefler stated that a comparison was being made on two separate systems. Council-
member Kuefler suggested it was like comparing apples and oranges and the $8,000
comparative figure was misleading because the comparison was between two different
systems. If Hauenstein & Burmeister listed figures for a non -key system, it is
likely their price would be considerably lower than what was quoted for a key system.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned Mr. Barry's recommendation that LOGIS be tied into
two of the trunk lines because it would reduce the number of citizen calls which
could be accommodated. In essence, two direct lines would be removed from use.
Mr. Barry explained with a new system calls should be processed more quickly,
increasing the efficiency of the system, therefore, the use of two lines for
LOGIS should not cause a problem. Councilmember Kuefler questioned how many other
organizations mix computer lines with regular lines. A northwestern Bell representa-
tive responded he believed Columbia Heights, Fridley, Eden Prairie, and Blaine mix
computer lines with regular lines.
Councilmember Kuefler stated it was his experience working with computers that it
is unwise to mix computer lines with regular lines. A Northwestern Bell repre-
sentative responded that if LOGIS was not added, it would be possible to reduce
the City's trunk lines to 10% "or 11 trunks.
The City manager explained Llit! C ame 1 .i �cl' c mini cri i A in romper son
to the time it takes to deal with the citizen on Lne phone allU L11C L11l1G it-
{ OA4J
deal with the citizen on the phone will remain constant, that time will not be
decreased.
The City Manager emphasized the reason the Hauenstein & Burmeister system was recom-
mended was because of economics. The City Manager stated the City is satisfied with
the present phone system but the Hauenstein & Burmeister system is less costly and
at the same time gives the City what the City needs.
Councilmember Kuefler mentioned the buy back provision in the Hauenstein & Burmeister
proposal was advantageous to the City. Councilmember Kuefler stated he was in
disagreement with the figures presented by Mr. Barry in his presentation. He explained
he came up with the figure of $76,300 for the Bell system as compared to $51,300 if
the cost for proposals which meet the base specifications are compared.
The City Manager emphasized comparing the Dimension system with the system of
Hauenstein & Burmeister is like comparing apples to oranges because they are
two different systems.
Councilmember Lhotka questioned what the cost of using key sets would be. Mr.
Hatfield responded the elimination of key sets would allow for 'a less costly system.
Councilmember Lhotka noted he was not convinced the City needs key sets. The City
Clerk responded after a thorough evaluation of that question with department heads
and with all of the bidders, he is convinced the most advantageous system for the
City is one with key sets.
4 -9 -79 -5-
Councilmember Fignar asked for a clarification and questioned whether comparing
competitive systems what the difference in cost would be. Councilmember Kuefler
explained it was his understanding that in comparing competitive systems, the
Hauenstein & Burmeister system would save the City $6,000 per year or $500 a month.
Anticipating a life of approximately ten years or possibly more the City would
save $60,000 or more. Over a 37 month period; the City would break even on the
Hauenstein & Burmeister system.
Councilmember Fignar again clarified that the phone system the City operates with
now is adequate and if we do nothing we would by paying an additional $12,000 a year.
The City Manager responded we will pay an additional $12,000 per year if we retain
the present Bell system as opposed to accepting the bid for the Hauenstein &
Burmeister system.
Councilmember Fignar again questioned.whether or not the Bell system would be
available for us to purchase. The Northwestern Bell representative responded the
Bell system is not available to purchase. He noted because of regulations of the
Public Service Commission, Northwestern Bell is prohibited from selling and can
only lease. He did note Northwestern Bell had not requested a change of that
regulation.
The City Clerk stated another consideration was Hauenstein & Burmeister can begin
installation within one week, whereas, Northwestern Bell could not begin installa-
tion for 20 weeks which might cost an additional $5,000 because of the delay.
Mayor Nyquist stated he had called one of the Hauenstein & Burmeister users
:oho stated they were unhappy because of interface problems.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether the pity sr-ail naa done any caning of
the users. The City Clerk responded he had spoken with the community of Plymouth
and they were well satisfied. He also noted McCullough Industries and Holiday'
were utilizing Hauenstein & Burmeister systems and were well satisfied. The' -
City Manager explained he had sent to the Council a copy of the various private
and public institutions which utilize Hauenstein & Burmeister systems.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he did not feel the Council should be in the business
of writing the specifications for a system to be used within City Hall. He stated
he felt the City Clerk .lad proposed a system which would save money and which would
meet the requirements of the functions of City Hall. Councilmember Kuefler stated
if the Council can save the taxpayers $60,000 and possibly more over the next ten
years and still maintain good service, he felt the City should go with the Hauen-
stein & Burmeister bid. Councilmember Kuefler noted the staff had worked extensively
to prepare this recommendation and he was satisfied with the staff's recorunendation.
Councilmember Kuefler again stated he did not feel it was the business of the
Council to be setting specifications for the phone system, that was the work of
the staff. Finally, he recommended the acceptance of the Hauenstein & Burmeister
bid for the phone system.
Councilmember Fignar again stated he was concerned with the credibility of the
Hauenstein & Burmeister company and would like to have more information from
private or,public institutions which are serviced by Hauenstein & Burmeister.
The City Manager stated City staff had checked with numerous people in preparing
the recommendation'to accept the Hauenstein & Burmeister bid. During that
investigation, it was learned customers were satisfied with Hauenstein & Burmeister.
In regard to an earlier comment that a particular customer was dissatisfied, the
City Manager stated that it is entirely possible but cautioned the Council to also
realize that there would be a significant number of Northwestern Bell customers
who would be dissatisfied as well as satisfied.
4 -9 -79 -6-
The City Manager emphasized the staff did take considerable time in investigating
various systems and in working with the different companies to come up with the
specifications.
Councilmember Scott noted she had *spoken with three private companies and one public
and they were well satisfied with the Hauenstein & Burmeister Councilmember
Scott commended the staff for the work they had done. 'She stated the City would
own the Hauenstein & Burmeister system after 37 months and the net sayings would
be considerable. She stated the Hauenstein & Burmeister system would save the City
taxpayers' money and at the same time would offer a system which was functional
for the City.
DENIAL OF RESOLUTION
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING A TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM FOR CITY HALL
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Tony Kuefler and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: Dean Nyquist,
Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was declared denied.
Councilmember Fignar noted he was aware of the service which Northwestern Bell was
able to provide and he was unsure of the service which Hauenstein & Burmeister
could provide.
PLANNING COADITSSION ITEMS
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79001 submitted by
Mr K enneth Rcroctrnm fnr n ra—ninff- The City Manager called the Council's attention
. -I-- n -.., l I ., A ,,. ..., -:.,., A
r ,
Lo a cv�,y Vi Q 1CLLG1 iL Viu ♦i i.. .��-a. b._a �,-wu .. a. :, as ...w v.....— ' -- — .- , - - - - --
which asked for a withdrawl of Application No. 79001 for a rezoning.
There was 'a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
accept the.withdrawl of Planning Commission Application No. 79001 submitted by
Mr. Kenneth Bergstrom. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79009 submitted by
Mr. Steve Nelson for'a preliminary plat approval to combine lots commonly known
as the Lynbrook Bowl, Spanjers and Mendenallas outlots into Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1,
Lynbrook k Bowl Addition. The application was recommended for approval at the March
29, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. Concurrently, the City Manager asked the
Council to consider Planning Commission Application No. 79010 submitted by Steve
Nelson for a variance from Chapter 15 (Subdivision Ordinance) regarding street
width. This application was recommended for approval at the March 29, 1979
Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the applicant is requesting
preliminary plat approval under Planning Commission Application No. 79009 to
combine a Lynbrook parcel, the Spanjers parcel, and the Mendenallas outlots into
two lots to be known as Lots l and 2, Block 1, Lynbrook Addition. He explained
the area under consideration is bounded on the west by Camden Avenue, on the
south-and east by North Lilac Drive and on the north by 65th Avenue North. He
explained this application was tabled by the Planning Commission on March 15, 1979
to work out some inconsistencies between the preliminary plat and the applicant's
site plan; to include the City's approximate 148 foot by 286 foot parcel on the
corner of 65th Avenue and North Lilac Drive; and to provide an additional five
feet of roadway right -of -way in the vicinity of the existing buildings. The
4 -9 -79 -7
Director of Planning and Inspection explained that staff had met with the applicant
regarding the inclusion of the City owned parcel on this plat., It was agreed that
the City owned parcel should be included in the plat and that the City would be
participating in the costs associated with,the additional platting request. The
Director of Planning and Inspection noted the applicant had submitted the .revised
preliminary plat including all the other requested revisions and that the plat
was in order.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned the Director of Planning and Inspection as to the
possibility of vacating the roadway to Camden Avenue. The Director of Planning and
Inspection noted that at the March 15 meeting there had been a suggestion that the
City vacate a portion of North Lilac Drive lying between the State highway right-of-
way and the existing buildings and possibly serve this area with a cul -de -sac.
He explained it does not seem feasible at this time to accomplish this because of a
need for providing access to the Chippewa Park apartments off Camden Avenue and
the location of an already existing curb cut to that complex. He noted the drive
through area does, at this time, serve a purpose for fire protection reasons and
other safety considerations. He added it would be possible in the near future to
pursue this idea further but such a concept would involve participation on the part
of the adjacent property owner. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated it
was his hope that the property owners could get together to work this out in the
near future.
Councilmember Fignar asked for a clarification of the cost of platting the City's
owned parcel. The City Manager explained the City would be paying their share
of that cost.
Tha Tlirtnr' Plann And Tncnarti nrnPPPdPd to rpviP_w P1.annine Commission
hEl FJ11l.;d L.1UL1 LVU. 7 19010 W111 L11 1J d 1GliLLGJt tvr a v—c.«�c. a... ✓u ✓.+—. —✓
+. va
ordinance requirements regarding roadway dedication,. He explained that,a 5O fopt
roadway dedication is required all along North Lilac Drive to provide the- necessary
right -of -way for a marginal_ access roadway. He noted because of the location of
the existing Lynbrook Bowl and Spanjers building which are currently about 16 feet
from the existing North Lilac Drive roadway, the applicant is requesting a variance
so that only a 35 foot roadway be provided in this area. He pointed out that the
required 50 foot dedication would be provided in the area where it is feasible.
The Director of Planning and Inspection commented that the applicant has indicated
that both the Lynbrook and Spanjers building, when constructed, were in conformance
with all City codes, restrictions and regulations. He explained that subsequent
to that time, the physical surroundings have been changed to conform to State
acquisition of land and the installation of major highway and interchange. He
pointed out that the applicant feels that to conform with conditions beyond his
control would be an extreme hardship and deprive him of the reasonable use of his
land.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the standards for granting a variance
from the subdivision ordinance which include that there be special circumstances or
conditions affecting the property, such that the strict application of the provision
in the ordinance would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land; that
the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right
of the petitioner; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the
property is situated.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application Nos. 79009 and 79010. The applicant was present at the
meeting. There was'no one else to speak on the applications. There was a motion
by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public
4 - -79 -8-
. i
hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 79009 and 79010. Voting in favor-
Mayor Nyquist,- Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79011 submitted by
Steve Nelson for site and building plan approval for remodeling and combining the
Lynbrook Bowl and the Spanjers building into an approximate 690 foot restaurant,
cocktail lounge and bowling establishment. The City Manager asked the Council to
consider two other applications submitted by Steve Nelson at the same time. Planning
Commission Application No. 79012 submitted by Steve Nelson for a variance from
Section 35 -400 (setback requirements) for a new construction to conform with
existing setbacks on North Lilac Drive and Camden Avenue North. Planning Commission
Application No- 79013 submitted by Steve Nelson for a special use permit to allow
live entertainment in a restaurant and cocktail lounge in the remodeled establish -
ment. Planning Commission Application Nos. 79011, 79012 and 79013 were recommended
for approval at the March 29, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that Application No. 79011, as
well as Application No. 79012 and 79013 were tabled by the Planning Commission
on March 15 so that the site plan would accurately reflect the property lines
indicated on the proposed plats; to add berming along North Lilac Drive and
Camden Avenue; and to develop recommended language dealing with a variance request.
The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed Planning Commission Application
No. 79012 which consists of a variance to allow construction to enlarge and combine
buildings that do not comply with existing setback regulations. He pointed out that
the applicant also seeks a variance from the 35 foot setback_ requirements along
North Lilac Drive and the 25 foot side corner yard setback along Camden Avenue
Ncrt-L. He rcperte,! presently 0h 1—ilr1inac that faf`P NorY.h TAInc Drive are aDDroxi
mazeiy 10 LCeL LLUIIt L11C I:LLLLCll I- bLLCCI. i� 6Li L "i3 °wcty Ctiiu wviiiu v.:. -.- •. �.-__ .- - ---
additional street dedication being provided with the proposed plat. He noted
the Spanjers building is approixmately 20 feet from the Camden Avenue right -of -way
rather than the 25 feet required by the current Zoning Ordinance. The Director
of Planning and Inspection stated that the proposed building addition would link
the two buildings and would be built at the same setback as the existing buildings
and, therefore, would not aggravate an existing condition. He noted with respect
to the Spanjers building, along Camden Avenue, the applicant proposes to square
off the building with an addition that would continue, but not aggravate, the
existing 20 foot setback.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reported the applicant had submitted the
letter indicating that when the buildings were built, Spanjers in 1955 and Lynbrook
Bowl in 1956 they did comply with existing ordinance standards. He added that since
that time State highway land acquisition and the installation of a major highway and
interchange have changed the physical surroundings and conditions such that the
buildings in question do not meet setback requirements. He reported the applicant
contends that an undue hardship would result if he was required to conform with
existing regulations which would mean that the front portion of the Lynbrook Bowl
and the front and side portions of the Spanjers building would have to be removed
to comply with the current regulations. He added the applicant also contends the
situation is unique and distinctive because it was caused by the taking of the
property for public purpose. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the
applicant claims the variance, if granted, would not be detrimental to the public
or injurious to other land, primarily because it would be maintaining existing
setbacks and not aggravating an already existing situation on a property.
4 -9 -79 -9-
i
The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out, regarding Application No. 79013,
that the entertainment would involve show groups with dancing available. Finally,
he reviewed the standards for a special use permit contained in Section 35 -320,
Subdivision 2 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Planning Com-
mission Application Nos. 79011, 79012, and 79013. The applicant was present.
There was no one else to speak on the applications. There was a motion by Council-
member Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on
Planning Commission Application Nos. 79011, 79012, and 79013. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyqu.ist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether or not the lighting in the parking lot would
affect the Chippewa Park apartments. The Director of Planning and Inspection replied
it was required that the lighting be turned downward and would not affect the apart-
ments, further indicating the lighting was governed by ordinance.
Councilmember Kuefler asked for a clarification as to whether or not the entryway
would be facing the parking lot. The Director of Planning and Inspection indicated
that this was correct but there would be provisions throughout the building for
exit only. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the connecting link would
be the entrance to the bowling lanes and the restaurant. It was the applicant's
attempt to minimize the impact on the south side of the building stressing the
use of the parking lot side.
Councilmember Lhotka suggested it might be an appropriate condition of approval to
�+ ..l of �r n+- bn-o ;or t-imo n-F etrttrtttra in the southeast corner to
i,w� ..... — Z C ... C t.l....._`_ __ ,. - -
further discourage pedestrians. The applicant responded he would have no problem
adding this.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned how many additional employees might be hired. The
applicant stated presently there were approximately 40 to 42 employees and upon
completion of the addition, 140 to 160 employees would be working there.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79009 subject to the following conditions:
1. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. Final plat shall include an approximate 148' x 286' parcel owned by
the City of Brooklyn Center located on the southwest cornier of 65th
Avenue North and North Lilac Drive.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79010 subject to the following conditio
I. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property
such that strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
4 -9 -79 -10-
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial right of the petitioner.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property-in the territory in which said property is
situated.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuef ler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79011 subject to the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official
with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount
to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure
completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to an
approved central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of
the City Ordinances.
5. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
__
0- it
6. All landscaped areas snail De L reaLed wig L sou au! -Lail ' Z cq__- � _ •_ _ '
an underground irrigation system to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval acknowledges a lower level in the building entrance and
connecting link which is to be used for storage purposes only. Any other
proposed use will be subject to further review by the City.
8. The final plat for the property in question shall be filed prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits for the remodeled restaurant area.
9. The applicant shall petition the City for roadway upgrading for North
Lilac Drive and submit the necessary bond for street and curb improve-
ments as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
10. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34
of the City Ordinances
11. The applicant shall provide an appropriate bicycle parking area on the plan.
12. Additional parking lot lighting, of the same type provided in the plan,
shall be provided on the northeast corner of the parking lot.
13. A barrier structure of some type or a planter shall be placed on the
southeast corner of the building to further discourage pedestrian traffic.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
4 -9 -79 -11-
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79012 subject to the following conditions:
1. The variance request is consistent with the Standards for Variances
contained in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly with respect to
uniqueness, hardship and the fact that it would not be detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood.
2. The proposal for which the variance is sought is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the Northeast
Neighborhood.
3. The proposal for which the variance is sought is consistent with
uses acknowledged in the C2 zoning district.
4. Granting of the variance is subject to the following conditions:
a. There shall be no on- street parking permitted at any time on
either side of North Lilac Drive in the area where only a 35'
right -of -way is being provided.
b. Only emergency exits will be permitted along the side of the
building that is adjacent to North Lilac Drive. No entrances,
sidewalks or other amenities which encourage pedestrian access
to the building in this area will be permitted.
Voting in tavor: Mayor Nyquist, l ounciimembers xuezier, rignar 1111OL ca, al.iu ouutc.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve Planning Commission Application No. 79013 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the
facility and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations
involving live entertainment and violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
3. The hours of operation for live entertainment shall coincide with on -sale
liquor license regulations.
Voting in favor: Mayor.Nyquist, Co�ncilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Mayor suggested that the Council should consider the liquor license for the
Lynbrook Bowl at this time. The City Manager explained the Lynbrook Bowl was
requesting an on -sale intoxicating liquor 1,icense and an on -sLle intoxicating
Sunday liquor license. He noted the Council had received a copy of the liquor
license investigation.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve the on -sale intoxicating liquor license for the Lynbrook Bowl. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The moiton passed unanimously.
4 -9 -79 -12-
i
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
approve the on -sale intoxicating Sunday liquor, license. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, F.ignar, Lhotkd, and Scott. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79014 submitted by
Mr. Robert L. Johnson for a rezoning from R -3 (townhouse /garden apartment's) to
C -1 (service /office) and C -2 (commercial) on the property located on the west side
of Brooklyn Boulevard in the 7200 block. Planning Commission Application No. 79014
was recommended for approval at the March 29, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the property is bounded on the
north by the Brooklyn Center /Brooklyn Park municipal boundary, on the east by
Brooklyn Boulevard, on the west by Shingle Creek and on the south by Creek Villa
Townhouse neighborhood. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported the
same applicant, under Planning Commission Application No. 78032, had requested
a rezoning for most of this same area to C -2 during the summer of 1978. He
explained the applicant had been denied by the City Council because of the
undesirable precedent of rezoning the entire area to C -2. The Director of
Planning and Inspection further reported that the City Council, after denying
the rezoning request, had directed the Planning Commission to study the
feasibility of considering a split zoning, C -1 for the southerly portion of
the site and C -2 for the northerly portion of the site, in light of the following
considerations: C -1 zoning to the south could be compatible with existing adjacent
zoning in Brooklyn Center; C -2 zoning on the northerly portion could be compatible
to adjacent land users in Brooklyn Park; the split zoning might provide a buffer
between the R -3 property (Creek Villa and the Ponds) and the commercial properties
in Brooklyn Park. He added the Council had also requested the Commission to look
uL LSIC fC_at5l vi LCGV11i116 Lu 0 - 1, d puLu-nLial.ly iau,! Lu tLL1G
west, lying easterly of Shingle Creek.
The Director of and Inspection reported the applicant has indicated the
desire, if the rezoning requests are approved, to eventually develop a restaurant
on the C -2 property to the north and service /office uses on the remainder of the
parcels to be rezoned to C -1. He noted the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group,
when reviewing the C -2 rezoning request under Application No. 78032 on July 5, 1978,
had recommended a split C -1 /C -2 zoning for the parcel. He stated in light of this
recent recommendation, it was not felt this matter would have to again be referred
to the neighborhood group for their review and comment. He indicated the neigh-
.
borhood had been notified of the current proposal.
In response to a question from Councilmember Kuefler, the Director of Planning and
Inspection explained the applicant had indicated an intent to donate part of the
westerly parcel of the property to CEAP who intends to build on that site.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated Mr. Louis Terzich, a member of
the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had attended the March 29, 1979
Planning Commission meeting and had spoken in favor of the rezoning request,
noting the current rezoning proposal was consistent with the recommendation
made by that group in July of 1978.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned the applicant as to whether or not soil samples
had been taken of the area. Mr. Johnson responded,soil samples had been taken
some time ago and had shown the property to be buildable at that time.
4 -9 -79 -13-
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 79014. The applicant was present. There was no one
else to speak on Application No. 79014. There was a motion by Councilmember
Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 79014. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers ;
Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79014 with the following conditions:
1. The property in question is unique because of its location between
Shingle Creek and the commercially zoned property to the north in
Brooklyn Park.
2. Approval of the rezoning acknowledges the C -2 zoning on the north as
being an extension of, and compatible with, the existing zoning in
Brooklyn Park.
3., Approval of the rezoning is not to imply that there is a need for
additional C -2 rezonings along Brooklyn Boulevard.
4. The C -2 rezoning to the north can be adequately buffered from the less
dense residential uses to the south and west by concurrent C -1's rezoning
of the remainder of the property which is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuetler, r'ignar, Lnocka, and scotr.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79015 submitted
by Mr. Robert L. Johnson for preliminary plat approval to combine part of Outlot
F for the Ponds Addition and part of Lot 19, Auditor's Subdivision 57, into Lots
1, 2, and 3, Block I, R. L. Johnson 1st Addition. Application No. 79015 was
recommended for approval at the March 29, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained three lots would be created,
all having access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that a drainage, utility
and access easement of 50 feet on either side of the center line of Shingle
Creek would be provided. He noted this easement would be comparable to the
one obtained along Shingle Creek on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard when that
property was platted last fall..
The Director of Planning and Inspection reported the parcel to extreme west of
Brooklyn Boulevard would have an arm extending to Brooklyn Boulevard to provide
access onto a public street as required by city ordinances. He stated it is antici-
pated that this area, with the proper legal agreement and restrictions, could be
used as a common access to serve all three lots in the plat. He noted the access
would be a private, rather than a public access, and the plat indicates an area
30 feet in width. He pointed out it might be more desirable if this area were
50 feet rather than 30 feet with portions of this area to be used for greenstrips
and also for the storage of snow during the wintertime.
4 -9 -79 -14-
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether there would be any problem with the common
roadway as comprehended in the application. The Director of Planning and Inspection
noted the City was concerned with the number of curb cuts on Brooklyn Boulevard and
this common access eliminates additional curb cuts. The Director of Planning and
Inspection noted he did not foresee a problem with the common roadway.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the City controls the appearance of the
roadway. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded the City approves
as part of the site and building 'plan approval the appearance of the roadway.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the City should require some type of
agreement to prevent a land locked tenant in future years. He questioned whether
some sort of agreement could be required. The City Attorney re it is a
standard practice to insert a paragraph of this type in situations where town-
houses are involved, indicating the City does have the power to go in for public
utilities work or snow plowing work and the cost can be assessed back to the
homeowners. This type of notification puts the homeowners on notice only and
is more of a public relations item than a legal requirement. The City always has
the right to go in but with the residents in townhouses it has been seen as a
public relations gesture.
The Mayor opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 79015. The applicant was present. There was no one
else to speak on Application No. 79015. There was.a motion by Councilmember
Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
..`n on*.r ncio Dl on r�inn r-mmi cci nn Annl i rat nn mr).. 79n1 S - _iiblPf t to tbP fn1 lowinP.
(:U LLU 1l1V11.`S
I. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
3. The preliminary plat will be revised to indicate the necessary
access easements along Shingle Creek.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
The City Manager introduced a resolution accepting quotations for chairs for the
Council Chambers. He noted this item was approved as part of the 1979 Budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -88
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 100 STACKING CHAIRS
The motion for the adoption of the'foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly 'passed and adopted.
4 -9 -79 -15-
The City Manager introduced a resolution amending expense reimbursement policies.
He noted due to an increase in costs, it is recommended the reimbursement rate
for meals and personal use of auto be increased. Councilmember Kuefler questioned
why there was a difference in rate of lU to 200. The City Manager explained the
20(� reimbursement rate would be given to those employees specifically designated
to use their car as part of their official duties for the Specifically,
this includes the City appraisers and the City inspectors. The type of driving
the City appraisers and the City inspectors do for the City is excessive stop
and start driving which is more costly in terms of auto usage and mileage. Those
people would be reimbursed at a rate of 20fi per mile.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -89
Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT POLICIES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION�NO. 79-90
?Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF MR. DONALD BOGLE
Th mctil.r tke - ��nr�tinr� of Hip fnYP4ning rt- snliition was duly seconded bv
member �Bill a Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and
Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced a resolution ordering the abatement of unsanitary,
unsafe and hazardous conditions existing at 6213 Beard Avenue North in the City
of Brooklyn Center such that this dwelling is unfit for human habitation. The
City Manager noted the compliance order issued by the City of Brooklyn Center
for the unsafe conditions and health hazards existing at 6213 Beard Avenue North
have not been met; therefore, it is recommended the City correct the conditions
of deficiency and place a lien.against the real estate described. The'cost
should then be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 with compliance being affected by the authority
of Section 12 -1206 of the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center.
A resident living next to 6213 Beard Avenue North affirmed that the conditions
existing at this house were unsafe and constituted a health hazard. He offered
his recommendation that the City proceed with the action as stated in the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -91
Member Bill Fignar introduced the following- resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF UNSANITARY, UNSAFE AND HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS
EXISTING AT 6213 BEARD AVENUE NORTH IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUCH THAT THIS
DWELLING IS NOW UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION
4 -9 -79 -16-
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean_Nyqui-st, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The City Manager introduced a discussion on the policy for issuance of industrial
revenue bonds and tax increment bonds. He noted the City Council discussed the
policy for issuance of industrial revenue and tax increment bonds at the February
12, 1979 City Council meeting.
The Director oc Finance stated currently the City can use tax exempt municipal
bonds to finance improvements. It is possible, the wide issuance of industrial
revenue bonds, which carry the same tax exempt features as the general full faith
and credit bonds, will eventually end up competing with the City's general improve-
ment bonds such as special assessment, building facility bonds. The Federal
Internal Revenue Service for years has been working in Congress to eliminate the
nontax status of full faith and credit municipal bonds. If municipalities issue
too many of these industrial revenue bonds, this will place municipalities in
direct competition with the private money market.
The City Manager stated it appears to be in the best interest of the City to issue
industrial revenue bonds on a very limited basis for two reasons: first, industrial
revenue type bonds will and do compete directly for the same funds as full faith
and credit and municipal bonds; second, liberal use of these industrial bonds
further encourages the Federal Internal Revenue System to lobby with Congress
for the repeal of the tax exempt status for full faith and credit municipal bonds.
�VU11Ul llll ClllUCL ld .L�LLd1 liUCbl -1VL1C �-1 writ �.tiGi �.�c �.v �uYc�i�ivc. �w� wu.. _�.� J+..
to our own community or whether these bonds would be purchased in a wider market.
The Director of Finance indicated the bonds would be sold on a wider market.
The City Manager stated the draft policy for the issuance of industrial revenue
bonds is quite restrictive because the limited approach to the issuance of industrial
revenue bonds was requested by the City Council. Referring to the Dale Tile request,
the City Manager stated the proposal is meritorious and certainly as stated, meets
the spirit and intent of the State laws governing industrial revenue bonds. It
does not meet the policy guidelines of the draft policy on issuance of industrial
revenue bonds. If the Dale proposal is approved, consistency would dictate that
many other proposal would have to be approved, including those of industries and
businesses in B.C.I.P.
.Councilmember Fignar questioned what the record of other municipalities in this
area was. The City Manager stated it was his understanding that the Cities of
Plymouth, Bloomington, Brooklyn Park, and St. Louis Park had issued industrial
revenue bonds.
.Councilmember Fignar questioned whether a decision by the City of Brooklyn Center
not to issue industrial revenue bonds doesn't put the City of Brooklyn Center
at a disadvantage because the City of Brooklyn Center competes with other cities
for business.
The Director of Finance commented that was one viewpoint, but consideration
should also be given to the fact that issuance of these bonds could be costly to
taxpayers if the interest rates on general obligation bonds increases.
4 -9 -79 -17-
The City Manager commented, given the City's development concerns and the City's
concerns with the municipal bond market, a restrictive policy would be his recom-
mendation.
Councilmember Fignar stated if Brooklyn Park issues industrial revenue bonds and
Brooklyn Center goes to the same market then Brooklyn Center is essentially paying
for Brooklyn Park's advantage. The Director of Finance commented again that was
one perspective but another perspective was that if Brooklyn Center issues then
Brooklyn Center is adding to an already increasing problem.
Councilmember Scott stated she was aware of two bills in committee which had been
written to curb the indiscriminate issuance of industrial revenue bonds. These
bills set as conditions for approval that the bonds must be issued for City services,
redevelopment, housing needs which can't be met otherwise, or for needed public
services for which no other financing is available.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Dave Kennedy who serves as bond counsel for the City of
Brooklyn Center. Mr. Kennedy stated there are bills in the Legislature which have
been presented with an objective in mind to remove the possibility for abuse of
the issuance of industrial revenue bonds. Part of that objective is to remove
certain housing projects which are questionable in terms of meeting the objectives
of industrial revenue bond financing. Mr. Kennedy stated both the state and the
federal government are concerned with the use of industrial revenue bonds to finance
housing. Mr. Kennedy stated industrial revenue bonds were originally initiated to
be used with the revenue producing businesses as opposed to housing.
Councilmember Kuefler stated initially as he understood, industrial revenue bonds
were begun as a means to develop amenities ror a city anu co iurLi►ei ueveivP
certain areas of the community where there is a need for development, particularly
struggling communities. Eventually, industrial revenue bonds began to be used
for a variety of projects with a broadened range. The Legislature appears to be
attempting to tighten the rein on industrial revenue bonds again. Councilmember
Kuefler stated it does not appear that the City of Brooklyn Center needs to offer
additional incentive to businesses to locate in Brooklyn Center because commercially
and industrially Brooklyn Center is approximately 95% developed unlike such cities
as Brooklyn Park and Plymouth which are minimally developed at this point.
Mr. Kennedy stated industrial revenue bonds can be a useful tool if used appropriately.
The Mayor recognized a representative from the Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Paul DesVernine,
who is employed by Iten Chevrolet and is a member of the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. DesVernine stated it was requested of the Chamber that they review the draft
policy for issuance of industrial revenue bonds and make a recommendation to the
Council on the issuance of industrial revenue bonds. Mr. DesVernine noted the
City of Coon Rapids has used industrial revenue bonds successfully and the City of
Maple Grove was looking towards the use of industrial revenue bonds. Mr. DesVernine
stated the Chamber was in favor of the issuance of industrial revenue bonds. He
stated the Chamber was recommending certain changes in draft policy to read as
follows: in the first paragraph the words "or mortgage" would be added reading as
follows; "the following other requirements do we establish by resolution for the
City of Brooklyn Center for guidelines to developers seeking City approval or use
of industrial revenue bond or mortgage or tax increment financing." Another change
was suggested in point number 2 adding the words "is not reasonably feasible withou
some governmentally assisted financing system ". Point number 2 would then read
"the applicant must be able to demonstrate that similar type development under
similar circumstances is not reasonably feasible without some governmentally assisted
financing system other than routine assessments for streets and utilities." The
4 -9 -79 -18-
Chamber also suggested a change by adding the word "reasonably" in point number 3.
Point number 3 would read "the applicant must demonstrate conclusively and the
City Council must 'concur that: a) The proposed project is in compliance with
the City's Comprehensive Plan. b) Historic and current conditions indicate the
the Comprehensive Plan cannot be reasonably implemented on the subject property
without the use of governmentally assisted financing system (industrial revenue
bonds -tax increment bonds)." Mr. DesVernine stated the other points in the draft
were acceptable as written.
Councilmember Fignar questioned the Director of Finance as to what the effect of
a city's indiscriminate issuing of industrial revenue bonds actually is. The
Director of Finance replied the indiscriminate use draws up interest rates. He
stated there is an approximate 3% to 4% difference in interest rates between tax
exempt and nontax exempt bonds. The Director of Finance noted a person seeking
approval of industrial revenue bond financing must come to the City Council but must
also submit the proposal to the Commissioner of Public Securities. To date the
Commission has approved the majority of industrial revenue bond financing appli-
cations which have been submitted. The Director of Finance stated the City cannot
rely on the State to regulate industrial revenue bonds but must regulate those
locally.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt the issuance of bonds could potentially
contribute to two problems. The first problem was competition with City bonds
and the second problem was the competition with the free money market. Council-
member Kuefler stated that he did agree what Brooklyn Center does is miniscule
in comparison to the entire nation but he further stated that two wrongs do not
make a right and contributing to the problem is certainly no way to solve it.
The Director of Finance stated the City does not take on the responsibility for
r�nnn�Qrm Ant of inrinci- -r+AI rPPPn77P bonds, but certainly the City's bond rating would
UC C71 f C L.{.. Ctl UY' LILa t.•
The Director of Finance also stated there is not a clear cut answer to the question
of whether or not the City has a responsibility to investigate the economic feasi-
bility of a.project. He further stated there is not a clear answer as to whether
or not that investigation would increase or decrease the liability to the City
for a given project.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt that the approval of the Dale Tile request
would open the door t'o a need to approve many more requests for industrial revenue
bonds and he stated he did not feel it would be the responsible action for the
City to take.
The Director of Finance questioned what the issuance of industrial revenue bonds
.would do to the existing business community because certain businesses would be
financed through private money and other businesses would be financed through
industrial revenue bonds which would appear to give them an unfair advantage.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Wes Reavely who stated he felt the people in Brooklyn'
Center would be penalized if the Council refused to issue industrial revenue bonds.
Mr. Reavely noted he had been active in the 50th and France area in Brooklyn Center
and he was aware that certain businesses were considering moving if they were not
able to get industrial revenue bond financing for redevelopment. He stated he
felt that Brooklyn Center deserves the competitive edge as much as other cities
such as Bloomington, Plymouth and Maple Grove.
Councilmember Kuefler stated that with the impact of fiscal disparities, the City
does not realize an appreciable tax base increase. He stated Brooklyn Center has
come up short under the Fiscal Disparities Act in the last few years.
4 -9 -79 -19-
The Director of Finance commented that one of the purposes of the fiscal disparities
was to stop competition among communities.
Councilmember Fignar commented a community needs a balance between residential,
industrial, and commercial and he questioned how a community gets additional land
developed for industry and commerce if a community cannot compete by use of industri
revenue bonds.
The City Manager commented that part of the Comprehensive Plan states the community
would be developed by the mid '80's. The City Manager commented it was his belief
that the remaining land in Brooklyn Center will be developed with or without this
type of financing.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Richard Palmiter representing Mr. Dale as bond counsel.
Mr. Palmiter noted he had put together the financing package for Mr. Dale.
Mr. Palmiter suggested he would like to respond to a couple of points made earlier
in the discussion. He stated Mr. Dale was asking for a tax exempt mortgage and the
purchasers of this type of bond would not be the same as purchasers for municipal
bonds, therefore, the competition created would be with others who would purchase
mortgages rather than others who would purchase municipal bonds. Mr. Palmiter
also stated he did not feel that it was in the best interests of the City to
formulate a policy whereby the City would finance a weak project with industrial:
revenue bonds. Mr. Palmiter stated under no circumstances should the City be in
the business of financing weak projects because it is likely there would be
problems with this type of a project.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned Mr. Palmiter how the Council could be in the
'�..• C f , r. 4.7i n r.! i _}, nrn -.7, „r7 �.,1.i nF, arr� ctrnnrr nrniAntc
i .
The City Manager stated the does not state that the City would be in the
business of financing weak projects. It addresses projects which may be
uneconomical to finance privately but are not weak projects. Under this policy
a project may be economical with this type of financing to achieve a development
consistent with the Guide Plan.
The City Manager also stated.he was reluctant to become involved in making recom-
mendations as to which projects were weak and which projects were strong. The City
would be getting too far into the mortgage banking business.
Councilmember Kuefler again stated he felt that the land in Brooklyn Center would
develop on its own and stated the same conditions do not exist in less developed
areas such as Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove or Plymouth.
Mr. Palmiter referred to comments made earlier in the Council meeting concerning
the discussion on the phone system at which time various Council members suggested
it was in the best interest of the City to save money. Mr. Palmiter made a parallel
between Mr. Dale's proposal and those comments made earlier about saving money.
Mr. Palmiter suggested if a business such as Dale Tile can be issued an industrial
revenue bond it will help the business save money and will keep businesses in
Brooklyn Center. In contrast, if industrial revenue bonds are not issued, some
businesses may find it necessary to move out of the City.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Dale. Mr. Dale stated it was necessary to build a new
building in order to be competitive in the market. He stated it was not possible
to go ahead with this addition unless he did receive industrial revenue bond financing.
4 -9 -79 -20-
Councilmember Fignar stated he understood both sides of the issue and favors indus-
trial revenue bond financing. He stated he was concerned about losing good businesses
in Brooklyn Center to other communities. Councilmember Fignar stated he supported
the Chamber's policy recommendations.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
adopt the policy for issuance of industrial revenue bonds as amended by the Chamber
of Commerce. In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Lhotka asked for a clarification
of what those amendments would do. The City Manager responded he did not think that
the Dale proposal would meet the amended guidelines. The City Manager also stated
he felt that the addition of certain words such as "reasonable" made the policy
ambiguous and open to varying interpretations which would result in an unclear
policy.
Councilmember Scott stated she felt the word "reasonable" was difficult to interpret
and recommended the policy should not include the word reasonable. Mr. DesVernine
stated the policy had been taken directly from the Coon Rapids policy and was a
verbatim copy.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
amend the motion on the floor to accept the recommended draft with the following
change in wording: the recommended changes should be incorporated into the draft
policy but the word "reasonably" in items 2 and 3 should be deleted.
In discussion of the motion, Mayor Nyquist questioned whether a clause should be
put into the policy to accommodate redevelopment of existing businesses. The City
Attorney responded a more workable approach might be to define redevelopment in
terms of land use because of questions arising as to what is defined as an existing
business.
The City Manager stated he felt it was important to set a policy wherein there is
not a disagreement over the meaning of the policy.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Al Beisner, representative from B.C.I.P. Mr. Beisner
commented he felt it would be in the City's best interest to reword point number 1
which states "neither the property owner nor the applicant shall have any out -
standing taxes or assessment delinquencies within the City of Brooklyn Center" to
accommodate applicants in such a way that they should not be penalized for back
taxes from a former owner by preventing them from being approved for industrial
revenue bonds.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt Mr. Beisner's point was well taken. He suggested
the applicant could sign an agreement to pay the back taxes as part of the total
; package.
In response to other questions from the Council, the Director of Finance stated he
felt the minimum size of a project feasible for industrial revenue bond financing
would be $300,000.
In vote on the amended motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council -
members Kuefler, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: Councilmember Fignar. The
motion passed.
i
DENIAL OF RE
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its denial:
4 -9 -79 -21-
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT BY WILLIAM J. DALE UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT,
AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COMTIISSIONER OF SECURITIES
FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT
The motion for the denial of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Tony Kuefler, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following
voted against the same: Dean Nyquist and Bill Fignar, whereupon said resolution
was declared denied.
DISCUSSION OF LOGIS INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROPOSAL
Mr. Dave Kennedy as representative of LOGIS, explained to the Council the LOGIS
industrial revenue bond financing proposal. He stated LOGIS has undertaken a
major improvement of its computer facilities involving a shift over to a free
standing computer facility at its headquarters in Brooklyn Center. The program
involves purchase of computer hardware and related software systems and their
installation at the Brooklyn Center site. Because of the unique nature of LOGIS
as a joint powers organization, financing alterations for the project are somewhat
limited, and the LOGIS Board has concluded that a lea se purchase arrangement of
some type is the most feasible method of financing. Mr. Kennedy stated a conventional
lease purchase would probably result in borrowing costs somewhat in excess of 7.5%,
making the project economically difficult for the organization, and LOGIS wishes to
reduce this debt service cost, and enhance the cost to its member municipalities
by the use of tax exempt financing under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Develop -
ment Act.
Mr. Kennedy stated a method of receiving such financing has been 'devised by LOGfs
in conjunction with Dain Kalman & Quail, ts counsel and by Mr. Kennedy
J � Q Inc., >
as counsel for LOGIS. Under this approach, the computer equipment would be
acquired by a nonprofit corporation with the proceeds of industrial development
bonds or notes issued by a member city of LOGIS. The corporation would then lease
the project to LOGIS for a five year term with lease payments pledged by the
corporation to repayment of the industrial revenue bond. When the bond was paid,
LOGIS could exercise an option to purchase the project, or lease for another term
as it sees fit. The industrial revenue bond would be purchased by Dain, Kalman &
Quail, as underwriter, and placed privately within an institutional investor such
as a bank or a savings and loan association.
Mr. Kennedy explained the corporation has been formed and will be in a position to
purchase the project and lease it to LOGIS and to request the issuance of industrial
revenue bonds by the City. He explained Dain, Kalman & Quail is prepared to advise
the Council that the project is financially feasible and that the bond can be
succes..,fully sold. The underwriter's counsel, Mr. Thomas D. Hay of Dorsey,
Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladey, who will be acting as bond approving
counsel, is prepared to give a preliminary opinion that the proposal consitutes
a project under the act. Mr. Kennedy explained if the Council chooses to give
preliminary approval to the project by adopting the resolution as presented on
the agenda, the application can be submitted by the City to the Commissioner of
Securities for approval which must be obtained before the industrial revenue bond
can be issued and sold.
Mr. Kennedy proceeded to explain why he felt this particular proposal can be clearl
I
distinguished from other proposals the City has received in the past or might
receive in the future. He stated the following: first, the proposal does not
inure to the benefit of a private business; second, the project would have a
direct effect on the efficiency of local government itself, including that of
4 -9 -79 -22-
Brooklyn Center, by increasing the capabilities of the unique cooperative effort
represented by LOGIS; third, the duration of the proposed financing is quite short
as industrial revenue bonds go. Most proposals of this size extend for 15 or 20
years; fourth, there would be no competitive disadvantage to any existing business
enterprise in the City or anywhere else in the metro area; fifth,_ since a clear
governmental function would be served there is no. question of the soundness of
the public purpose of the proposal; sixth, because of the short duration and
small size of the industrial revenue bond, and the fact that the industrial
revenue bond would be a single instrument placed with a single investor, the
impact of its issuance on the availability of capital for investment on municipal
bonds for conventional municipal purposes would, be insignificant; seventh, the
City would be a legitimate user of the Industrial Development Act and would assist
itself and other local government units to achieve an objective clearly contemplated
by the Act.
Mr. Kennedy stated the City of Brooklyn Center is being asked to issue the industrial
revenue bond because the project will be specifically located in the City.
Additionally, Mr. Kennedy explained all costs of the issuance of the bond would be
paid by the corporation; there would be no expense whatsoever to the City in con-
nection with the issue; the industrial revenue bond would not be included in any
debt computation of a City; and there would be no liability or obligation of the
City in case of default that would not be indemnified by the corporation or
performed by a trustee under the documents underlying the transaction.
Mr. Kennedy emphasized that Council approval at this time was preliminary and the
proposal would be subject to the approval of the project by the Commissioner of
Securities and subject to final approval by the City Council.
Mayor Nyquist questioned Mr. Kennedy as to how the project fit in under the adopted
;_eciianrp ¢iiide- 1-ines. Mr. Kennedv replied it is difficult to iii tine 1JLV3Vci. 111Lv
the guidelines because it is a unique project and is actually a governmental project
as opposed to a private project.
Mayor Nyquist also questioned Mr. Kennedy as to what would happen if the corporation
were to liquidate. Mr. Kennedy stated the question was legitimate and it would be
important for,the corporation to take another look at the articles.
Councilmember Lhotka concurred with Mayor Nyquist's earlier question and stated a
concern with the legitimacy of the LOGIS proposal as it related to point number 2
of the policy. Again Mr. Kennedy stated the policy guidelines related more directly
to developers whereas in this proposal the work is being done for government and
the proposal is unique and does not actually fit the guidelines.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he was in favor of the concept of distinctions for
municipal projects. Councilmember Kuefler state he was concerned that a statement
be included in the articles of incorporation as to what would happen with any profit
that was to accrue at the end of lease payments.
Mr. Kennedy concurred that itwould be important to include a statement dealing with
possible profits or liquidation within the articles. Mr. Kennedy further stated
the Council approval was only preliminary approval and the proposal would come
back to the Council for final approval.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned Mr. Ted Willard whether a delay of two weeks in
making a decision on the LOGIS proposal would hinder the project. Mr. Willard
stated the delivery date on the project is July l and a delay of two weeks would
definitely hinder the project.
4 -9 -79 -23-
I .
Finally, Mr. Ted Willard stated that by Statute LOGIS is prohibited from incurring
debt or selling bonds, therefore, Mr. Willard stated this is a viable alternative
and will fulfill a very definite need which will benefit Brooklyn Center as well
as other communities involved in LOGIS.
Councilmember Kuefler indicated he would be willing to take action on the proposal
contingent upon changes as discussed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to approve the preliminary proposal contingent on LOGIS and the Minnesota Municipal
Leasing Corporation stating specific language in the articles which would speak
to the questions of dissolution of the corporation, and langugage which would
resolve possible ownership problems at the end of the lease time. Additionally,
it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Council that the final proposal fits
the policy for the issuance of industrial revenue bonds due to uniqueness or other
factors. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mayor Nyquist abstained.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -92
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA
MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, REQUESTING APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER
OF SECURITIES, AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thpranf • Tnnv Ki,pfl pr _ 'Rill Fi anar, ('-Pnp T.hntka . and ('.al i a qrnfit' an(j
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted. Dean Nyquist abstained from voting.
Councilmember Lhotka stated before he would be willing to vote approval on the
final proposal, questions about how the proposal fits under point number 2 of
the policy must be dealt with.
In questions directed to the City Attorney, the City Attorney responded consistency
in evaluating the industrial revenue bond proposals according to the policy was
important.
Mr. Kennedy stated it might be possible to explore covenants between the corporation
and the City as to corporate structure, purpose and function.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 23 regarding license fees.
He noted the ordinance was first read on March 12, 1979, published on March 22, 1979
and is presented for second reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 79 -7
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 REGARDING LICENSE FEES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance
was declared duly passed and adopted.
4 -9 -79 -24-
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Councilmember Fignar was scheduled to give a summation of the League Conference
which he had attended. Councilmember Fignar stated he was preparing a written
statement for the press and would make verbal comments to the Council at a later
Council meeting due to the lateness of the evening.
The City Manager introduced a Council. discussion of the timing and approach of
Council meetings to address the various issues involved in a technical stud in
g y
nonconforming status of Howe, Inc. The City Manager noted the Council had been
given a copy of the Hickok report and recommendations which include a copy of
the Loofbourow explosive report and Mr. Bruen's report on fire related concerns.
The City Manager also indicated the Council had received.a copy of his recom
mendations concerning the explosive permit. The City Manager stated he recommended
the Council discuss at this time a format for dealing with the three basic issues,
those being the question of explosives, the question of rebuilding, and the question
of regulation of toxic materials. The City Manager recommended that the Council
not receive public comment at this time but rather lay out a schedule for dealing
with the problem. The City Manager noted the Planning Commission will be considering
the Howe rebuilding at its meeting on April 19,1979.
Councilmember Kuefler stated if the Council decided to pass certain ordinances
regulating the storage and transport of, chemicals and other toxic materials, that
would have an effect on the explosive issue and the rebuilding issue. For this
reason he stated it was important to consider possible ordinance changes before
or concurrently with consideration of the explosive issue and the rebuilding issue.
The City Manager stated establishing ordinances to regulate transport and storage of'
chemicals and other toxic materials would be exceedingly time consuming and will
iuvic Lllali 1i11.c1y icij_uic �llc c.i>Ycl �.�5c i.l �,VUaLLll.ciul.a .1. ii viuci l.v cS�avii�ll .LC�i%.iauu�c
and workable ordinances.
In response to questions from the Council, the City Manager explained that Hcwe
would be subject to meeting the requirements of ordinances written to regulate
transport and storage of chemicals and other toxic materials even though they had
been storing and transporting chemicals and other toxic materials prior to the
passage of the ordinance. In health and safety related areas, the ordinance
becomes effective for all residents and /or industries, unlike zoning ordinances.
Councilmember Lhotka suggested calling a special session to deal with the Howe
issue separately because of the time consuming nature of the situation.
The City Manager suggested a date for a special session might be set at the
April 30 special study meeting of the Council. By that time,.the Council will
have had the opportunity to review the Hickok report and the various accompanying
documents and might be ready to set a date possibly in early May for the special
Council meeting to deal with the Howe situation. Additionally, by that time the
Planning Commission will have considered the Howe rebuilding and hopefully will
have made recommendations to the Council.
It was the consensus of the Council that a date for a special Council meeting to
deal with the Howe situation will be set at the April 30, 1979 special study
meeting. It is anticipated that the special Council meeting will be scheduled
for the month of May.
i
4 -9 -79 -25-
The City Manager introduced a discussion of an authorization for the Mayor and the
City Manager to execute an agreement with the firm of Merila- Hansen, Inc. to provide
engineering services in regard to technical background design assistance for specifi
projects. The City Manager noted the Council had discussed this agreement at the
March 26, 1979 meeting and had discussed some concern over the wording of the
agreement.
Councilmember Fignar suggested adding the following words "when in the City Manager's
opinion, Mr. Merila's knowledge of past City engineering affairs is advantageous
to the project or the City ". Adding this statement the first paragraph would read
as follows: "this agreement entered into this ninth day of April, 1979 by and between
the City of Brooklyn Center (hereinafter the City) and Merila- Hansen, Inc. (herein-
after the consultant) to provide certain professional engineering services when in
the City Manager's opinion, Mr. Merila's knowledge of past City engineering affairs
is advantageous to the project or the City ".
The City Manager stated that wording would be acceptable to him.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to execute an agreement with the firm of
Merila- Hansen, Inc. to provide engineering services in regard to technical background
design assistance for specified projects with the wording changes as suggested by
Councilmember Kuefler and noted in the paragraph above. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
1�1L.L1VULU
Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember rgnar to approve cne
following list of licenses:
BINGO LICENSE
St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. No.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center American
Little League 3107 66th Ave. No.
Faith Community Church of God 6630 Colfax Ave. No.
Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. No.
GAMBLING LICENSE
St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. No.
HOUSEMOVER' S LICENSE
Safeway House Mover's, Inc. 8955 235th St. No.
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Kathy Dziedzic 7000 James Ave. No.
Evergreen School 7020 Dupont Ave. No.
I
4-9 -79 -26-
i
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Don's Air Conditioning & Heating 3903 Foss Road N.E.
Elsters Company
915
N. Citrus Avenue
Lakeland North Heating & Air
15821 Hedgehog St. N.W.
Conditioning
_M OTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE - CLASS A
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. 6121 Brooklyn Blvd.
Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
North Star Dodge 6740 Brooklyn Blvd.
.Pontiac of Brookdale 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE - CLASS B
J. C. Penney Co. 1265 Brookdale Center
ON -SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
6357 North Lilac Drive
Lynbrook Bowl
ON -SALE INTOXICATING SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE
Lynbrook Bowl 6357 North Lilac Drive
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
Naegle Outdoor Advertising 1700 W. 78th St.
Suburban Lighting, Inc. 6077 Lake Elmo Ave. No.
SWIMMING POOL LICENSE
Beach Apartments 4201 Lakeside Ave. No.
Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Norman Chazin 6950 Wayzata Blvd.
Northbrook Apartments 1302 69th Ave. No. .
European Health Spa 2920 County Road 10
Four Courts Apartments 2936 Northway Drive
Garden City Court Apartments 3407 65th Ave. No.
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Lyn River Corporation 4601 Excelsior Blvd,
Lyn River Apartments 201 65th Ave. No.
Marvin Garden Limited 430 Oak Grove St.
Marvin Garden Townhomes 68th & Orchard Ave. No.
Bennie Rozman 400 Dakato Ave. So.
Brookdale Ten Apartments Hwy 100 & 53rd Ave. No.
Twin Lake North Apartments 4536 58th Ave. No.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
GAMBLING AND BINGO.LIGENSE BOND WAIVER
The City Manager explained the State law requires the bingo and gambling manager
to give a fidelity bond of $10,000 in favor of the organization to insure that
he/she will faithfully conduct duties of the office. The City Council can waive
4 -9 -79 -27-
i
the requirement for the bond by unanimous vote at the time the license is granted.
The bond waiver can only be eliminated if the Council votes unanimously to eliminate
the $10,000 bond requirement. If the Council so votes, the bond waiver is stipulate
on the license itself. Included in the license list for a license for gambling and
a license for bingo is St. Alphonsus Church. St. Alphonsus Church has requested a
bond waiver. A motion to waive the bond and the unanimous vote of the Council is
needed to accomplish the waiver.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
waive the bond for the St. Alphonsus Church gambling license. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
waive the bond for the St. Alphonsus Church bingo license. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager noted St. Alphonsus Church had also requested approval by the
Council to hold more than two bingo occasions a week during the time when their
annual fun felt is held. State Statute requires the Council to approve by a
majority vote this dispensation.
There was a motion. by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to allow St. Alphonsus Church to hold more than two bingo occasions a week during
tho time of t-lhair anniinl f„n fact Vntin4 in favors Mavor Nvauist_ Councilmembers
i„c n3 t--., Yu.......�
unanimously.
A DJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to adjourn the City Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-
members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 1:03 a.m.
J
7
—,-
Clerk y
4 -9 -79 -28-