Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 05-23 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 MAY 23, 1977 CITY HALL Call to Order The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Also present were City Manager Donald Poss, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, and Adminis- trative Assistants Brad Hoffman, Mary Harty, and Ronald Warren. Mayor Cohen reported that Councilman Kuefler had previously requested to be excused from this evening's meeting, and that Councilman Fignar had called to inform him that he had an emergency business meeting and would be unable to attend this evening's meeting. He stated that both Councilmen were, therefore, excused. Approval of Minutes Motion by Councilman Lhotka, seconded by Councilman 5 -9 -77 - Britts to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1977 City Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Mayoral Appointment Mayor Cohen requested that consideration of his to the Park and appointment to the Park and Recreation Commission be Recreation Commission deferred until later in the meeting. Potential Planning Mayor Cohen announced that he had been informed of the Commission potential resignation of two members of the Planning Resignations Commission, Commissioners James Kohrt and Robert Foreman. He explained that it is anticipated that these resignations will be submitted later in the summer. He requested the press to announce the potential vacancies and to inform interested citizens that application for these two Planning Commission positions can be made directly to the Mayor. He stated, that although it is not required, he wishes to maintain a geographic balance on the Planning Commission and is seeking interested persons from the southwest area of the City to replace Commissioner Kohrt and interested citizens from the northeast area of the City to replace Commissioner Foreman. Declaration of Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Surplus Equipment Councilman Lhotka to declare as surplus equipment 32 pairs of skis, 39 pairs of ski poles, and 40 assorted size binders to be disposed of at'the City auction. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. -1- 5 -23 -77 w r The City Manager introduced the next item of business Federal on the agenda, that of a resolution recommehded for the Antirecessionary purpose of amending the 1977 General Fund Budget to Fiscal Assistance satisfy the Federal requirements contained in the Program Antirecessionary Fiscal Assistance Program. He stated that the City is a minor beneficiary of $4,124 of Federal antirecessionary fiscal assistance funds which are tied by formula into the Federal Revenue Sharing Program. He explained that the antirecessionary program has its own set of rules and regulations, among them the requirements that the money must be spent within six months after receiving it, and that the money must be spent for an ongoing municipal service. He recom- mended that the transfer of funds be to the street lighting account which should create an approximate $4, 000 surplus in this budget at the end of budget year 1977. Councilman Britts inquired if this increase in the street lighting budget would allow the City to add street lights in the middle of some blocks this year in areas where it is thought that they are needed The City Manager responded that normally consideration for a major pro- gram such as this would be done during the preparation and review of the upcoming year budget. He pointed out the potential financial commitment problems of adding street lights randomly without a thorough consideration of the entire program. Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -101 _RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1977 GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS AND FUND TRANSFERS FROM THE ANTIRECESSION FISCAL ASSIST- ANCE FUND TO THE GENERAL FUND The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution ' was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -102 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING GIFT 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 5 -23 -77 -2- Equal Opportunity The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Policy that of a resolution recommended by the Brooklyn Center Human Rights Commission for the purpose of expressing and reaffirming the concept of equal opportunity employ- ment practiced by the City. He stated that this subject was discussed by the Human Rights Commission over a period of three meetings earlier this year and that the resolution was recommended by the Commission on April 20, 1977. He explained that the Commission had indicated that this resolution is not intended to imply that City employment practices are other than what is appropriate for equal opportunity employment, but to formally express and reaffirm the City's policy and intent to provide such opportunities. Councilman Britts commented that he is in favor of equal opportunity statements but added that the seeming proof of equal opportunity is in the number of non - Caucasians and persons of protected classes that are employed. He inquired as to the methods utilized for recruiting minorities. The City Manager responded that he feels available resources for recruiting minorities, short of "knocking on doors", have been tapped such as adver- tising in minority newspapers and contacts with minority recruiting agencies and minority community leaders. He referred to the efforts made to recruit not only minorities but other "protected classes as well in the police department and on the City Manager's staff. He. stated that the hiring of a black administrative assistant approximately one year ago was the direct result of an extensive affirmative action effort. He commented that - through individual conversations with members of the City Council and also through Council direction, he operates under the accepted definition of affirmative action as being "everything else being equal, the minority or protected class should then be hired". He further reviewed other minority recruiting endeavors and stated that an above normal effort to recruit protected classes has been made, and that any lack of numbers is not due'to a lack of effort. Councilman Britts inquired as to the procedure that should be followed to refer a protected class person to the City for potential employment. The City Manager responded that in an organization the size of the City, there is very little turnover. He added that when a vacancy does occur it is publicized and applications are taken. He suggested that if a City Councilman, or anyone else, is aware of a potential minority applicant they should direct that person to the City Manager's office to make application for a specific vacant position, and if that person's qualifications meet the requirements of the job, they would be considered equally with other applicants. He pointed out that suggestions regarding a potential applicant would be accepted but that undue influence or interference with the consideration of applicants could pose a charter conflict. Mayor Cohen reported that he had an opportunity to discuss with the City Manager and the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission both City and private sector minority recruiting efforts. He stated that he and the Human Rights Commission Chairman are satisfied that aggressive attempts to recruit and attract protected class applicants are being made by the City and that these efforts are more than just the "paper efforts" practiced in some communities. -3- 5 -23 -77 Councilman Britts responded that he is not dissatisfied with the efforts and results, but neither is he inclined to be commendatory. Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -103 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING AND REAFFIRMING THE POLICY AND INTENT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO PROVIDE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN EMPLOYMENT TO ALL PERSONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Planning Commission that of consideration of Planning Commission Application Application No. 77011 No. 77011 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom. He stated (Kenneth Bergstrom) - that the application comprehends the rezoning, from C -2 to R -1 , of property located south of 69th Avenue North and east of the existing Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He explained that as far back as 1961 this property, along with the Humboldt Square Shopping Center property, has been planned as a neighborhood shopping center serving the northeast neighborhood of the City. He further explained that this site was so designated as C -2 with the development of the Comprehensive Plan . and Zoning Ordinance in the later '60's in accordance with stated policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He 'reported that there have been numerous speculative "pro- posals regarding development of the property and that most of these proposals have advocated a piecemeal type of development, contrary to the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, with the exception of the development of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, this C -2 property has remained vacant. He added that the proposal now before the City Council is to rezone the remaining portion of the C -2 property to R -1 in order to eventually develop single family homes. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to further review Planning Commission Application No. 77011 and the Planning Commission action at its March 10, April 14, and May 12, 1977 meetings. He reported that the Planning Commission on March 10, 1 977 after reviewing the rezoning request had referred further consideration of the matter to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Committee for review and comment. He stated that the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory group had reviewed the request and were in favor of the rezoning. He further stated that the Planning Commission at its ` April 14, 1977 meeting had discussed the requested rezoning and had determined that the Comprehensive Plan must be amended prior to the rezoning action. He explained that the Planning Commission had directed the preparation of a draft resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan and also the preparation of a draft resolution outlining its recommendation for approval of Planning Commission Application No. 77011 based on the following: 5 -23 -77 -4 1. The Humboldt Square Shopping Center adequately serves the northeast neighborhood. 2. There is a need for additional R -1 land in the northeast neighborhood. 3. There is not a perceived need for additional C -2 development in this area. 4. The owner has proposed' the rezoning changes and its represents a reasonable use of the property. 5. There is additional substantial vacant land zoned C -2 in the northeast neighborhood. He further reported that the Planning Commission had also discussed the need for a substantial permanent buffering along the west perimeter of the property to adequately screen the single family properties from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He next reported that the Planning Commission at its May 12, 1977 meeting had adopted Resolution No. 77 -2 recommending that the City Council amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding this area, and had also adopted Resolution No. 77 -3 which outlines the Commission's rationale for recom- mending approval of the rezoning request. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed slides and a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question, and a brief discussion ensued relative to the need for screening the Humboldt Square Shopping Center from potential single family homes. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that if the City Council favors the rezoning request, the procedure to follow would be to first adopt a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan and then take action on the Planning Commission Application in question. Mayor Cohen commented that he has no problem with amending the Comprehensive Plan or approving the rezoning request, but that he is concerned that adequate provisions be made to insure that the developer is aware of the Council's concern that there be substantial screening to appropriately buffer the Humboldt Square Shopping Center from any single family homes built on the property . The City Manager suggested, on the basis of past incompatibilities between residential and commercial interfaces, that the buffering between the shopping center and any single family homes be something substantial such as a masonery wall. He added that the type of buffering would be something that the City Council would want to carefully review no later than the time the developer submits a preliminary plat for the property. Mayor Cohen stated that if proper cautions are riot taken Prior to the rezoning, the City Council might find itself in a position where it cannot provide adequate screening for the property. He added that he is aware that rezoning actions cannot be conditioned, but pointed out that in the Past the Council has requested preliminary site and building plans prior to rezoning actions so that there is -5- 5 -23 -77 no misunderstanding between the City Council and the developer regarding exactly what is expected in developing the property. He suggested that the City Council might want the developer to meet with the staff over this matter of providing a positive buffering prior to the next Council meeting at which time it could again be considered. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Murray, who represented the applicant. Mr. Murray stated that Mr. Bergstrom has briefly discussed screening the property with the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Inspection, and is aware of the need but that he has not developed any specific screening plans. A Following a brief discussion regarding the procedure to Public Hearing follow, Mayor Cohen opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on a resolution amending Council Resolution No. 66 -295 (Comprehensive Plan) relative to commercial zoned land in the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North. No one spoke relating to the resolution. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Close Public Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing relating Hearing to a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued relative to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the rezoning request, and the need to make provisions for adequate screening. The City .Manager suggested that the City Council consider the screening question prior to any adoption of the amendment and subsequent rezoning. He explained that this would . give the developer an opportunity to present a screening plan which would support the rezoning concept. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Action Continuing Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Britts to Consideration of a continue the consideration of a resolution amending the Resolution Amending Comprehensive Plan and to table Planning Commission the Comprehensive Application No. 77011 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom Plan and Tabling until such time as the applicant submits a proposal to Planning Commission the City Manager which shows positive buffering for the Application No. 77011 property in question. Following further discussion a vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was a review of the preliminary Preliminary Plans plans for the north /south leg of FI -94 between 53rd for FI -94 Avenue North and 62nd Avenue North. Mayor Cohen recognized the Director of ,Public Works who reviewed the recommended procedures for reviewing the preliminary plans. He explained that he would present slides depicting plans for FI -94, review the results of a post card survey responded to by affected property owners, provide further background information regarding the plans., and then invite affected property owners to voice their concerns. He stated that Mr. Duane Brown, Assistant District Engineer of Preliminary Design, and Mr. Robert 5 -23 -77 -6- Paine, Project Engineer for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) , were present to respond to any inquiries from affected citizens and members of the City Council. The Director of Public Works next proceeded to review various slides showing the location of the project, the location of proposed noise abatement walls and the various properties affected by the project. Mayor Cohen left the table at 8 :39 p.m. and returned at 8:40 p.m. The Director of Public Works then reviewed a transparency showing the results of a post card survey regarding preferences for noise abatement barriers. He explained that 12 out of the 25 respondents living between 58th and 62nd Avenues North preferred that there be no noise abatement walls, and that 4 out of the 5 respondents living in the 5300 block favored no noise abatement walls. Regarding preference for wall material, he explained that 12 out of 19 respondents, or 63 %, favored a textured concrete block material rather than laminated wood. In response to an inquiry by Mayor Cohen regarding the proposed types of noise abatement barriers, the Director of Public Works responded that the Planning Commission has reviewed the plans and has expressed the opinion that the type of material used for noise abatement barriers be consistent thoughout the City. The Director of Public Works explained the procedure for requesting a variance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for deletion of noise abatement provisions. He explained that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) would request testimony not only from abutting residents, but from all residents in the area who are affected by the deletion of the noise abatement walls. He added that MPCA would also give consideration as to the effect the deletion of the noise abatement walls would have on future property owners, since the average length of living in homes in the metropolitan area is seven years. He further reported that if the MPCA granted the variance an exception from the Federal Highway Administration would also have to be obtained. He stated that the Federal Highway Administration makes the ultimate decision on whether the freeway project will be built without the noise abatement walls. The Director of Public Works briefly commented to concerns expressed that property values would be adversely affected by the construction of the freeway and the noise abatement walls. He stated that a recent study by the City Assessor indicates that the sales price for homes along highways and freeways is only about 1% less than the sales price for homes in other parts of the city. Mayor Cohen next reviewed the procedures for hearing affected and interested property owners that wish to express their opinions regarding the preliminary plans and noise abatement walls. -7- 5 -23 -77 Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to affected property Public Hearing owners and recognized the following citizens: Joanne Kent, 5807 Lyndale Avenue North, who inquired why earthen berm mounds could not be utilized for noise abatement purposes for the entire project. The Director of Public Works responded that earthen berms are planned for the majority of the area affected by the project but that in certain instances the acquisition of homes and property would be required to construct earthen berm noise abatement barriers Duane Brown also responded that land acquisition exclusively for a specific type of noise abatement barrier is not permitted by federal regulations. Allen Kent, 5807 Lyndale Avenue North, expressed his concern and displeasure with the possibility of having a noise abatement wall close to his front property line. Calvin Sullivan, 5815 Lyndale Avenue North, also expressed his displeasure with a noise abatement wall and stated that he would prefer an earthen berm between his property and the freeway for noise abatement purposes. He stated that no one living in the area of his home wants to look at a 16 to 18 foot noise abatement wall a few feet from the front of their home. Sinclair Clymer, 5901 Lyndale Avenue North, stated that the freeway project and the noise abatement walls would have an adverse effect on the value of his property. j. L. Maloney, 315 55th Avenue North, inquired as to. when his property would be acquired for freeway purposes. Duane Brown responded that appraisals for the properties to be acquired will be sent out to the affected property owners within the next six months. Dorothy Jansen, owner of the property at 6023 Lyndale Avenue North, stated that the majority of affected property owners favor no noise abatment wall and inquired if there would be other hearings after this one regarding the proposal for noise abatement walls. Mayor Cohen responded that if the decision is made by the City Council to recommend that no noise abatement walls be con - structed, a variance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Highway Administration would have to be obtained. He explained that consideration of the variance request would involve hearings with other property owners living further away from the proposed project also being given the opportunity to be heard as well as the affected property owners notified for this hearing. Dolores Hastings, 5813 Aldrich Avenue North, inquired if noise abatement walls could be constructed at some time after the construction-of FI -94. Robert Paine responded that if a variance from the noise abatement standards was obtained and the freeway was constructed without the noise abatement walls, there would be little likelihood of federal or state funding for the construction of noise abatement walls after testimony and a finding that noise abatement was not necessary. 5 -23 -77 -8- Douglas Glenn, 5937 Lyndale Avenue North, stated that the freeway and the accompanying noise abatement walls are undesirable, but that the noise factor is even more undesirable. He added that he favors the construction of noise abatement barriers. Gene Kasmar, 5559 Lyndale Avenue North, inquired regarding noise abatement walls for cul -de -sacs and potential drainage problems. The Director of Public Works responded that there would be noise abatement walls for cul -de -sacs and that plans for correcting potential drainage problems are being developed. Victor Anderson, 600 53rd Avenue North, inquired if the • storm sewer on 53rd Avenue North would have to be lowered in conjunction with freeway construction plans and, also, if 53rd Avenue North would be upgraded. The Director of Public Works responded that the storm sewer along 53rd Avenue North would have to be lowered and that the street would also be upgraded at the same time. Clair Mattson, 515 62nd Avenue North, expressed his opinions regarding the freeway plans. Gerald Taylor, 512 53rd Avenue North, inquired if it is anticipated that there will be traffic backup and exhaust problems along 53rd Avenue North when it becomes an interchange for the freeway. Robert Paine responded that the Department of Transportation has filed air quality reports based upon the potential use of 53rd Avenue North as an interchange for the freeway and has researched the matter of traffic backup at that location. He stated that they anticipate no air pollution problems and that the backing up of traffic along 53rd Avenue North once it is upgraded should be minimal. Les Moore, 6133 Lyndale Avenue North, expressed his opinions regarding the construction of the freeway and the noise abatement walls. Mayor. Cohen again recognized Dorothy Jansen, the owner of the property at 6023 Lyndale Avenue North, who stated that she cannot understand why there is so much concern over noise problems and that she favors having a view of the river rather than having a noise abatement wall in front of her property. Mayor Cohen responded that presently there is very little noise associated with the area in question but once the freeway is constructed the noise level will increase beyond what is considered tolerable by noise pollution standards. Mayor Cohen again recognized Joanne Kent, 5807 Lyndale Avenue North, who inquired if it would be possible to have an earthen berm noise abatement barrier rather than a wall in ° the area of her property. Mayor Cohen stated that it has been the City's policy that earthen berm noise abatement barriers be utilized wherever possible. He explained that in certain instances there is either not enough land to construct earthen berm noise abatement barriers -or that there is not funding available for acquiring property needed to construct these 1 1 of barriers. He again inquired if it would be possible to construct earthen berm noise abatement barriers in the area of the Kent property. The Director of Public Works _9_ 5 -23 -77 responded that between 58th and 59th Avenues North it is physically impossible to construct earthen berm noise abatement barriers without first acquiring additional property to construct them. He explained that acquiring the land in question does not meet the established guidelines and, therefore, it is not feasible to construct this type of noise abatement barrier. Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Close Public Councilman Britts to close the public hearing relating to Hearing the preliminary plans for the north /south leg of FI -94. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Following the comments from affected property owners a lengthy discussion ensued relative to the preliminary plans. Mayor Cohen inquired if the decision regarding whether or not to recommend noise abatement walls had to be made at this time or if it could be held over for furthur review. Robert Paine responded that the decision should be made by the City Council as soon as possible, hopefully this evening, because the Department of Transportation will be applying for various noise abate - ment variances from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for certain industrial areas in Minneapolis-and Brooklyn Center. He added that if the Council feels noise abatement walls should not be constructed a case would have to be developed and should be submitted to the PCA in conjunction with the other variance requests for the industrial areas. Mayor Cohen commented that it is probably easier to develop a case for a variance from the noise abatement requirements in an industrial area because no one lives there to be affected by the noise problems. He questioned whether or not an adequate case for a variance from the noise abatement requirements could be developed for a residential area. Mr. Paine responded that he honestly did not feel an effective case could be made for a variance request in a residential area. Councilman Britts commented that if - an effective case could not be made it would be a waste of time to pursue the variance matter. Based on his personal investigation, Councilman Lhotka suggested to the people in the audience that they go to various locations along the freeway where there are no noise abatement barriers and to also go to places where noise abatement barriers have been constructed and compare the differences in noise levels. He stated that he has done so and is convinced that noise abatement barriers effectively screen undesirable noise emanating from the freeway. He commented that in addition to a reduction in noise level the areas that have noise abate- ment barriers also seem to be cleaner with less freeway debris collecting on abutting properties Councilman Britts inquired if the concept of depressing the freeway had been considered. Mr. Paine responded that the preliminary plans comprehend that the freeway through Brooklyn Center would be substantially depressed for the most part. He stated that in the area of 59th and 60th Avenue North the freeway will have to rise to a higher grade in order to tie in with the existing interchange. 5 -23 -77 -10- Councilman Britts further inquired as to the need for noise abatement barriers if the freeway was to be depressed. Mr. Paine responded that depressing the freeway does not eliminate the need for noise abatement barriers. Duane Brown commented that the freeway is to be depressed as much as it can be and explained that if there was no depression, noise abatement walls would have to be from 35 to 40 feet high in order to effectively screen the noise. Further discussion ensued relative to the preliminary freeway plans. Mayor Cohen commented that there still are some individual or minor problems that he hoped the Minnesota Department of Transportation could resolve. • He further commented that it does not seem practical to attempt to gain a variance from noise abatement standards because an adequate case for such a variance could not be made. In response to an inquiry by Mayor Cohen, Duane Brown stated that the final plans for the north /south leg of FI -94 should be ready for final approval by the City Council in approximately one year. RESOLUTION Member Philip Cohen introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -104 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF T.H. 94 FROM 53RD AVENUE NORTH TO CAMDEN COURT 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: Philip Cohen and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Recess The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 10:21 p.m. and resumed at 10:40 p.m. RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -105 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (DEEP WELL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1976 -5 - FURNISHING AND INSTALLING DEEP WELL TURBINE PUMP AND ELECTRIC MOTOR FOR WELL NO. 8) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon Y vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Electrical The City Manager reported that in conjunction with the Engineering Fees installation of the deep well turbine pump and electric motor for well No 8, there is also a need for designing the complex electrical system. He explained that the City does not possess the in -house capability to design such an electrical system and recommended that the City Counci"• authorize him<to retain a registered electrical engineer for this design work. He stated that the cost for designing this system would not exceed $2,500. -11- 5 -23 -77 Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Action Authorizing Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Lhotka the Contracting for to authorize the City Manager to retain a registered Electrical Engineering electrical engineer in an amount not to exceed $2,500 Services for the design of an electrical system for deep well No. 8. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilren Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The mc`;:io g g n passed unanimously. Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -106 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN GROUP HEALTH PLAN, INC. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Philip Cohen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the samd: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman Britts abstained to avoid any inference or appearance of a conflict of interest, as his wife is employed by Group Health. The City Manager introduced the next item of business Employee on the agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the Assistance purpose of authorizing the City's participation in an Program employee assistance program designed to deal with employee personal problems such as alcoholism, drug dependency, emotional problems, and a whole range of other human relations problems. He stated that the State of Minnesota, through Hennepin County, is prepared to provide financial subsidies to encourage employers to participate in an employee assistance program. He explained that the theory of the Legislature in adopting this legislation is that these types of personal problems may adversely affect an employee's ability to function effectively on the job, and that by providing a program designed to diagnose these problems can possibly help rectify the problems and, thus, permit an employer to retain an otherwise productive and useful employee. The City Manager reported that there are a number of vendors that supply this type of service and stated that the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling in St. Louis Park would be utilized by the City if this program is instituted. He further stated that to be effective this program will have to be well publicized among employees and will also require the training of supervisors to recognize the possible problems and make suggestions for possible diagnostic or counseling help. He added that supervisors must be trained well enough to make a decision regarding' whether or not employee problems are of 'a disciplinary nature or are ones that may need some type of counseling or other assistance. A brief discussion ensued relative to the proposed employee assistance program. Councilman Lhotka requested, for informational purposes, a summary of clinics or agencies that provide the diagnostic services. Councilman Britts requested information regarding typical agencies that employees might be referred to by the diagnostic vendor. 5 -23 -77 -12- RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -107 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -108 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. ROBERT JENSEN 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -109 and moved - its adoption RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING APPLICATION FOR STATE CRITICAL AREAS PLANNING GRANT 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Request to Defer The City Manager recommended that the City Council Consideration of defer consideration of a first reading for two ordinances Certain Ordinances amending Chapter 35 that are on this evening's agenda until the next City Council meeting. He stated that one ordinance involves notice radius for special use permits and that the other deals with the rezoning request contained in Planning Commission Application No. 77011 which was tabled earlier in the meeting. It was the consensus of the City Council to so defer consideration of the two ordinances. Noisy Parties The City Manager introduced the next item of business Ordinance on the agenda, that of an ordinance recommended for first reading amending Chapter 19 regarding noisy parties. He stated that the ordinance is the result of an inquiry made at the May 9, 1977 City Council meeting at which time the Council had concurred that a draft ordinance: be presented. He explained that the ordinance is p:rceived as a necessary tool for the police department in addressing the increasing frequency of disturbing the peace complaints within the community involving specifically loud and noisy -13- 5 -23 -77 parties. He stated that typically most of the abuses emanate from apartments but to some extent single family homes. He briefly reviewed the procedures followed by the police department in responding to complaints involving noisy parties that disturb the,peace. He explained that in responding to a complaint a police officer will generally first warn the individuals involved and if he must return later because of continuilig noise, the officer will break up the party and ask participants to disperse. A brief discussion ensued relative to the proposed ordinance with Councilman Britts stating that he was under the impression that there already exists an ordinance which prohibits noise such as the running of motors and lawn mowers after 9:00 p.m. He inquired as to the need for this newly proposed ordinance The City Manager responded that the proposed ordinance specifically addresses noisy parties and defines the assembly of people participating in a noisy party as a nuisance. Further discussion ensued relative to the preamble of the ordinance with the City Manager responding to various Council inquiries. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Lhotka the City Attorney explained the differences between this proposed ordinance and the City's general disturbing the peace ordinance. Following further discussion relative to the ordinance and the police procedures for warning individuals involved in noisy parties, Councilman Britts requested that the first reading of the proposed ordinance be deferred until .the next Council meeting at which time there would be a full Council present, and to afford him the opportunity to research the City ordinances relative to his recollection . that there is an existing ordinance which could address this problem. It was the consensus of the Council that consideration of the first reading of an ordinance regarding noisy parties be deferred until the June 6, 1977 City Council meeting. The City Manager introduced the next item of business Twin Lake on the agenda, that of a status report by Councilman Boating Report Lhotka regarding the Twin Lake boating issue and the results of a public meeting held on Monday, May 16, 1977 regarding this issue. Councilman Lhotka reported that on Monday, May 16, 1977 approximately 100 interested persons attended a public meeting regarding regulating boating on Twin Lake. He stated that the meeting was requested by the tri -city Twin Lake Committee composed of councilmen from the cities of Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Center. He stated that it was his opinion that the majority of the people attending the meeting felt that some type of regulation was needed regarding boating on Twin Lake. He further stated that the tri -city Twin Lake Committee plans to meet some time in the coming week, and that hopefully proposals will be developed which can be submitted to the three city councils for their consideration. He added that any regulations agreed upon would have to be adopted by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. 5 -23 -77 -14- A brief discussion ensued relative to regulating boating on Twin Lake. Councilman Britts inquired if the Brooklyn Center access to Twin Lake could be posted to either prohibit the launching of motorized vehicles from the access, or to limit access to boats with motors of less than 15 h.p. Councilman Lhotka responded that there had been a number of comments regarding the closing or the regulating of this access. The City Manager stated that the access to Twin Lake could be regulated in accordance with regulations that apply to the rest of Twin Lake. He further stated that the timing for regulating the access is very important and should be done at the time the major decisions are made regarding boating regulations on the lake. He cautioned that to regulate the access at this time, absent regulations for the entire lake, might give the false impression that the boating problems on Twin Lake have been solved when, in fact, they have not. Mayor Cohen complimented Councilman Lhotka and the members of the tri -city Twin Lake Committee for their efforts in attempting to address problems that have been in existence for quite some time. Dutch Elm Disease The City Manager next reported on recently enacted Legislation Report Dutch elm disease legislation. He stated that the legislation makes provisions for removal and disposal of diseased elm and oak trees in addition to providing for a reforestation program for public property. He explained that the law also provides, for the first time, that special assessments for removal of diseased elms from private property can qualify as a local match in the State subsidy program. He stated that the reforestation: provisions apply to public property trees, providing for grants amounting to 50% of the reforestation cost or $40 per tree whichever is the lesser, while the grants for removal of the diseased elms and oaks may not exceed 45% of the cost. The City Manager commented that one of the major things that will affect the City of Brooklyn Center is that only 50% of the removal costs for boulevard trees can be specially assessed to the property owner where it is presently the City's policy that the property owner is responsible for 100% of the removal costs for boulevard trees. He also explained that municipalities may, if they desire, provide subsidies to nonprofit organizations, owners of private residential property of five acres or less, and to nonprofit cemeteries for the treatment or removal of diseased shade trees. He added that the law calls for a relaxing of burning regulations at certain designated sites for the disposal of diseased trees. The City Manager concluded his report by commenting that the Legislature had done a good job in terms of the Dutch elm disease problem by providing approximately $27 million for removal, sanitation, and reforestation programs, and also designing a flexible grant /subsidy program. He further stated that local costs associated with municipal shade tree disease programs quality as special levies under the Levy Limitations Laws. -15- 5 -23 777 A brief discussion ensued relative to the legislation. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Lhotka, the City Manager stated that the 1977 City budget contains a $10,000 contingency item in anticipation of tree removal costs for• park and other public property, and also'in anticipation of a tentative grant. /subsidy match - program by the State. The City Manager reported that Councilman Lhotka has Open Forum recommended that discussion of an open forum concept be deferred until the next City Council meeting at which time a full City Council will be present. The next item of business was consideration of a list of Licenses licenses recommended for City Council approval. The City Manager recommended the addition of late license requests to the list commenting that all of these licenses have been reviewed either by the Sanitarian or the City Clerk: 9 itinerant food establishment licenses for Stanley Shows relating to the Jaycee Carnival; 1 temporary on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license for the Brooklyn Center Jaycees for the Early Bird Tournament; and 1 itinerant food establishment license for the Brooklyn Center Jaycees also for the Early Bird Tournament. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to approve the following licenses: '?INGO LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2800 64th Ave. N. (Carnival) FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Berean Evangelical Free , Church 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Mrs. Jaycees 6218 Kyle Ave. N. (Carnival) Zayre Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE 3 -D Heating Co 3341 Dakota Ave. Airco Heating & Air Cond. 5608 Vera Cruz Ave. N. Berghorst Plbg. & Htg. 10732 Hanson Blvd. Harris Mechanical Co. 2300 Territorial Rd. Hayes Contractors, Inc. 1010 Currie Ave. Kleve Htg. & Air Cond. 13075 Pioneer Tr. Yale, Inc. -3 012 Clinton Ave . S. READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Bernard Lynch 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Norman Chazin Brookdale Manor Norman Chazin Four Court Apts . Norman Chazin Northbrook Terrace Norman Chazin Northlyn Apts . Norman Chazin 6037 Brooklyn Blvd. 5 -23 -77 -16- SWIMMING POOL LICENSE B.C. Community Ctr. 6301 Shingle Ck . Pkwy. Earle Brown Farm Apts. 1701 69th Ave N. Four Courts Apts. 2936 Northway Dr. Lyn River Apts. 201 65th Ave. N. Northbrook Apts. 1302 69th Ave. N. Northlyn Apts. 6511 Humboldt Ave. N. Twin Lake North Apts. 4536 58th Ave. N. TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Brooklyn Center Jaycees 2800 64th Ave. N. (Carnival) Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Board of Review The City Manager reminded the City Council of the annual Board of Review meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening, May 31, 1 977, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Child Molesting The City Manager commented relative to recent newspaper Incident reports regarding a child molesting incident at Evergreen School. He explained the concern that there was an attempt on the part of the school district to cover up the incident which originally involved a teacher and one student, and was later found out to involve more students. He reported that the matter was first brought to the attention of the police department by an irate parent. He stated that the teacher has since been relieved of duties at the school but there was no effort made to provide counseling or other services to the students involved, and that the incidents were not reported to the police department. He added that the County Attorney's office was asked about the possibility of filing obstruction of justice charges against school officials for their failure to report the matter to the police department or to the child protection agency. He explained that the County Attorney's office has since expressed the opinion that there is not sufficient grounds to bring obstruction of justice charges against the school officials involved. He further stated that the teacher has been charged, but the police administration does not only want to see a prosecution in this case but is also concerned about the need-for some type of counseling or professional assistance for the individual involved. A discussion ensued relative to the incident and also to other child abuse cases in the area. The City Manager commented relative to other recent newspaper articles regarding the child protection agency and its philosophy and overriding concern for maintaining a cohesive family unit, and how in many cases this philosophy has proven to be undesirable. He referred to two recent child beatings that resulted in deaths in Brooklyn Center and in Brooklyn Park which have led to a review of this concept and stated that it seems apparent that this philosophy has not always provided protection for the victim, in this case the child, until something disastrous happens. Mayor Cohen commented that this might be an area where State legislation could possibly be developed to address these problems. He requested that a report relating to child abuse problems be presented to -17- 5 -23 -77 the City Council for discussion purposes at an upcoming Council meeting. He also complimented the police department for their efforts in the child molesting incident and their concerns` and comments regarding child abuse problems. Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Adjournment Councilman Britts to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts and Lhotka . Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11 :59 p.m. s lerk or 5- 23y-77 -10 ^-