Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 07-11 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 JULY 11, 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, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Also present were City Manager Donald Poss, Director of Public Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, Assistant City Engineer Dennis Brown, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Ronald Warren. Approval of Minutes Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Council - 6=20 -77 man Lhotka to approve the minutes of the June 20, 1977 City Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts , Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Minutes Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Council - 6/27/77 man Kuefler to approve the minutes of the June 27, 1977 special City Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Minutes Councilman Britts requested that the last paragraph on 6/29/77 page 2 of the June 29, 1977 minutes be modified so as to reflect that he was acting as directed when contacting Howard L. Hoy Associates regarding their capability to provide a city manager search service. Councilman Lhotka, referring to the last paragraph on page 1 of the June 29, 1977 minutes regarding his report on thethird city council interviewed, requested that the minutes be modified to show that that city had retained Loren Law Associates to recruit city manager candidates and that they were not satisfied with the services provided and had decided to recruit a city manager on their own. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Council- man Lhotka to approve the minutes of the June 29, 1977 special City Council meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Mayor Cohen reported that he was not prepared this Appointment evening to make an appointment to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created through the recent resignation of Robert Foreman. He explained that he had recently received applications and would like to give further consideration before making an appointment. ' 7- 1.1 -77 The City Manager introduced the first item of business on Engineering Services the agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the purpose Agreement of authorizing the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into an agreement for engineering services to design the pedestrian bridge over T.H. 100 at 59th Avenue North. He explained that an agreement has been satisfactorily negotiated by the City Engineer and the City Manager with Egil Wefald & Associates, Inc. of Minneapolis and requested City Council authorization. A brief discussion ensued relative to the agreement with the City Manager explaining that the agree- ment stipulates that costs will not exceed $20,000. In response to an inquiry regarding whether or not the $20,000 figure should appear in the authorizing resolution, the City Manager explained that this figure appears in the contract and is not required to be in the authorizing resolution. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: NO. 77 -125 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH EGIL WEFALD & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PREPARING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BRIDGE PROJECT NO. 1977 -10. 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Subdivision Bond Lhotka to authorize reduction of a subdivision bond for Reduction (Northbrook Northbrook Alliance Church, 6240 Aldrich Avenue North, Alliance Church) from $3,000 to $1,000 on the basis of completed obligations. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously, Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: NO. 77 -126 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. ROBERT FOREMAN 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, 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, that Designating Acting of a resolution recommended for the purpose of designating City Manager James R. Merila as the Acting City Manager to serve in the interim until a new City Manager is retained. Councilman Fignar inquired if Mr. Merila would have use of a staff car while serving in the capacity of Acting City Manager. The City Manager responded that traditionally the chief administrative officer of the City has had use of a staff car. He explained that it was his intention, upon the effective date of his resignation, to turn the staff car 7 -11 -77 2- over to Mr. Merila for his use. He pointed out that designating the use of a staff car is a City Council prerogative and if the Council wishes to do so specifi- cally, this point could be added to the resolution. It was the consensus of the City Council that the " Acting City Manager should have 24 hour use of a City staff car while serving in that capacity. RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -127 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING JAMES R. MERILA AS ACTING CITY MANAGER 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka.; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -128 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1977 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, 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 -129 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1977 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Amending 1977 General The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Fund Budget to Provide that of a resolution recommended for the purpose of for CETA Funding increasing various departmental appropriations to the extent that CETA funding has been extended since March, 1977 to the end of September, 1977. Council- man Britts inquired if it was the intention of the City to carry these positions as full time positions when the Federal CETA program terminates. The City Manager responded that it was the Council's direction when the City entered into the CETA program, that these positions be task oriented or temporary in nature so that they would not have to be carried over once the program terminated. -3- 7 -11 -77 He explained that the CETA program has been in operation since 1975 and that based on the direction given by the City Council at that time it was his intention, with a few exceptions, to terminate all CETA employees once the funding for the program ceases. He stated that one of the exceptions is the police officer position which when authorized by the City Council was with the understanding that the position would become a full -time position after termination of the program. He further stated that other funds have been made available for the inspection aid position in the planning and inspection department and the engineering aid position in the engineering department. He explained that the Council may want to consider carrying over some positions for awhile, such as the landscape technician position which may be beneficial for the park planning program. He added that the remaining CETA positions are of the type that they would not necessarily have to be retained. Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: NO. 77 -130 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1977 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: NO. 77 -131 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1977 GENERAL FUND BUDGET 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption NO. 77 -132 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (PUMPHOUSE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1976 -9 - GENERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PUMPHOUSE FOR WELL NO. 8) 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: NO. 77 -133 RESOLUTION INCREASING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR PUMP HOUSE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1976 -9 7 -11 -77 -4- 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, 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 -134 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) ALUMINUM ENTRANCE UNITS 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhctka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was. declared duly passed and adopted. Twin Lake Boating The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Regulations that of a resolution drafted for the purpose of requesting the Hennepin County Board to regulate boating activity on Twin Lake. He explained that the resolution was first introduced at the June 20, 1977 City Council meeting at which time the Council decided to lay the matter over until this evening at which time a public hearing would be held. He briefly backgrounded the Council as to problems associated with boating on Twin Lake which ultimately led to the resolution that is before the Council to completely ban the use of motorized boats on the lake He reported that the Park and Recreation Commission and the Conservation Commission a few years ago had Jointly recommended, following an exhaustive study, boating regulations which had the effect of limiting the size of motors which could be used on Twin Lake. He explained that more recently a tri -city committee composed of council representatives from the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and Robbinsdale had held a series of meetings during which the boating problem on Twin Lake was researched and discussed. He further explained that the tri -city committee had held a public meeting to solicit input on May 16, 1977 and had subsequently developed the resolution that is before the Council this evening. He further reported that each of the three cities plans to consider the resolution following public discussions and to convey their recommendations to the Hennepin County Board which has regulatory authority over the lake. Mayor Cohen inquired if the tri -city committee had considered limiting the amount of horsepower for boats using Twin Lake as an alternative to completely banning the use of motors on the lake. Councilman Lhotka responded that this alternative had been considered but the committee had been advised that this would be basically illegal and that the Department of Natural Resources had said that limiting horsepower was not an adequate way to regulate boating problems on the lake. Councilman Fignar inquired if closing off the -5- 7 -11 -77 �I accesses to Twin Lake would be a solution to the boating problems on Twin Lake. Councilman Lhotka responded that he is not in favor of closing the accesses because it is a public body of water and to do so would possibly prohibit public use of the lake. He noted that the Department of Natural Resources will not stock a lake that does not have public access to it. Mayor Cohen reviewed the procedures to be utilized for the public hearing and opened the meeting for public comment. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Robert Wollenburg, 4734 Twin Public Hearing Lake Avenue, who inquired if our Council representative has met with councilmen from Robbinsdale and Crystal and if so, what are those cities' attitudes towards the proposed regulations. Councilman Lhotka responded that the tri -city committee has met on a number of occasions to discuss the matter and after much research regarding what could and could not be done had developed the resolution which would completely ban the use of motors on Twin Lake. Mr. Wollenburg stated that he favors the regulations pro- posed. Mayor Cohen next recognized Ione James, 5630 Twin Lake Terrace, Crystal, who explained that she has lived at her present address for 19 years and is the owner of a 50 horse - powered boat. She stated that she did not feel there was a boating problem on upper Twin Lake and spoke against the resolution. She inquired if she would have to get rid of her boat and motor if this regulation took effect. Mayor Cohen responded that if the Hennepin County Board adopts this recommendation in the form of an ordinance, she would not be able to operate her motor boat on Twin Lake. Council- man Lhotka stated that the tri -city committee in making its recommendations had looked at the idea of different regulations for upper Twin Lake and lower Twin Lake but had been advised that there should be no distinction and whatever regulations were imposed should be imposed uniformly throughout the lake. Mrs. James questioned what the lake would be used for if all motorized boats were prohibited from using the lake. Councilman Lhotka responded that he felt the lake would get adequate use from nonmotorized boats including sail boats and canoes. Mayor Cohen next recognized Mr. David Sandberg, 4831 Twin Lake Avenue, who stated that he felt regulating the speed on the lake and a concentrated enforcement effort of those speed regulations would be an adequate solution to the problem. He explained that Twin Lake at one time had been patrolled and that there had not been many problems because of the patrolling done. He added that he felt the State should be involved with the regulation of speed on Twin Lake. Mayor Cohen responded that the State has expressed the opinion that boating problems on Twin Lake are a local problem and added that the County at this time cannot afford to monitor Twin Lake at all times during the day and night. He pointed out that there is no real way to enforce speed limits on the lake. Diane Schake, 4740 Twin Lake Avenue, questioned why it would be illegal to block off the Brooklyn Center access on lower Twin Lake She added that there would still be an access to the lake on upper Twin Lake. Councilman Lhotka responded by stating that to cut off an access that is already in existence would be to restrict the 7 -11 -77 _�_ public's use of the ,lake. The City Manager stated an access to the lake cannot physically be blocked.off which would have the effect of keeping the public from using public property. He pointed out that an access, would not necessarily have to be well maintained but could not be physically eliminated John Schaaf, 4908 Quail Avenue North, Crystal, stated that he has been involved for the past five years in trying to make Twin Lake a safer lake in which to use. He stated that he totally concurs with the recommenda- tion to eliminate motorized boats on Twin Lake because' that.lake is too small and cannot adequately handle high speed boats. He added that he felt the enforcement of a speed limit on Twin Lake would be next to impossible. He pointed out also that Twin Lake is becoming more polluted because of the use of the lake by many high powered boats. He further stated that his overriding concern for safety is the reason why he favors the ban. Mayor Cohen again recognized Ione James, 5630 Twin Lake Terrace, Crystal, who attributed part of the success for keeping weeds down in upper Twin Lake to the use of motor boats. She also pointed out that it is difficult to control sail boats and speculated that there might be more safety problems using these type of boats on Twin Lake. Mayor Cohen again recognized Mr. Wollenburg, 4734 Twin Lake Avenue, who stated that there are relativley few problems in controlling sail boats. Mayor Cohen then recognized Mrs. Sandberg, 4831 Twin Lake Avenue, who stated that she felt one of the biggest problems with Twin Lake has to do with the beach area. She stated that there are no lifeguards, no swimming regulations, and no washrooms available at the beach and commented that she felt this problem was worse than power boats on the lake. Councilman Kuefler responded that the Park and Recreation Commission is in the process now of looking at plans for Twin Beach Park and will be proposing a different layout for the beach area. He added that there has also been proposals for making refinements to the parking area in addition to other things that will make the park more of a neighborhood park. Mrs. James commented that the majority of the accidents that have taken place on Twin Lake resulting in injuries or death have to do with swimmers and not boaters. Mayor Cohen recognized Barbara Wollenburg, 4734 Twin Lake Avenue, who stated that when she and her husband purchased their home they had been informed that Twin Beach Park was to be a neighborhood park. She stated that she felt very little had been done by the City to make this a neighborhood park. She pointed out that the area is not safe for swimming, that there are only a few signs around controlling traffic, there is no lifeguard, no buoys to indicate swimming areas, and that the language and habits of the people who use the park are unfair and abusive to the residents who live in the area. Council - man Kuefler pointed out again that the Park and Recreation Commission was reviewing Twin Beach Park and that they hope to make some recommendations to modify a number of these problems. -7- 7 '11-77 The City Manager commented that the City had inherited Twin Beach Park at the time the Ppartment complex adjacent to the park was developed. He stated that since that time the City ° has ,had tiger by the tail". He explained that it has always been the City's intention to make that area a neighborhood type park rather than to operate it as a large beach area. He pointed out that the area is relatively small and not really conducive to this type activity. He added that a beach area could be developed, lifeguards could be brought in, and the area again commercialized as it once was which would make the area even more enticing for use as a beach. He stated that such changes would in all likelihood mean that three to four times as many people would then be utilizing the beach area. He further stated that in retrospect, the City would have been much better off if the area had not been donated. Mayor Cohen commented that the City Council at the time the property was acquired had decided that the area would not be operated as a swimming area but rather eventually developed as a neighborhood park. He explained that Twin Beach Park, along with all other City parks, has been subject to much vandalism. 'He requested that Council - man Kuefler, City Council liaison to the Park and Recreation Commission, ask the Park and Recreation Commission to again review the plans for Twin Beach Park and also attempt to solicit more citizen input regarding plans for that area. Mayor Cohen then recognized Mr. Blanchette, 4821 Twin Lake Avenue, who inquired as to the reason for the prohibition regarding motors on boats using Twin Lake. Councilman Lhotka reviewed the research and discussion conducted by the tri -city Twin Lake Committee and explained that it was the committee's opinion that various regulations would have to be imposed on Twin Lake and that the committee had been advised that limiting the horsepower of motors on the lake was probably unconstitutional and, therefore, they felt the only other alternative was to completely eliminate the use of motors on the lake. Mr. Blanchette compared the situation on Twin Lake with that of Medicine Lake and stated that he thought access to Medicine Lake was prohibited. Councilman Lhotka clarified by stating that the public access on Medicine Lake has not been closed but was somewhat restricted. He stated that he felt restricting the access to the lake alone would not necessarily solve the problem. He pointed out that Twin Lake is a public lake and everyone has a right to use it. Mrs. James stated that she was not opposed to restricting people from bringing boats with motors on Twin Lake but that she felt it was unfair to restrict people already living on Twin Lake to only nonmotorized boats. She further stated that she did not feel that the City should make the public access to Twin Lake so attractive and if it was not so attractive and accessible, less people would be likely to use it, which would in all likelihood have the effect of less problems on the lake. Diane Schake, 4740 Twin Lake Avenue, inquired as to when the regulations would take effect. Mayor Cohen stated that following the public discussion the Council will deliberate the matter. He further stated that if the City Council adopts a resolution requesting the County Board to eliminate the use of motors on Twin Lake, that resolution will be forwarded to the County Board. He pointed out that the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale will also be considering the same resolution and will be conveying to, the County Board their recommendations. He further explained that the City of Crystal plans to have 7 -11 -77 -8- public discussions on the resolution on July 12, 1977 while the City of Robbinsdale plans to have public discussions on July 19, 1977. He pointed out that only the Hennepin County Board can adopt such an ordinance. Mrs. Wollenburg questioned what would happen if the County Board did not adopt such an ordinance after receiving the request of the various cities. Councilman Lhotka responded that we would then be back to where we are now. The City Manager pointed out that following the adoption of an ordinance establishing water surface use regulations on Twin Lake by the County Board, it would have to be forwarded to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources for final authorization. He stated that he thought the Commissioner of Natural Resources could unilaterally institute such an ordinance. Councilman Britts stated that according to conversations he has had with County Commissioners, all they are waiting for is a proposal from the cities involved to take action. Councilman Fignar inquired if Twin Lake would have to remain a public lake or if there was some type of action that could be taken to make the lake a private lake and, therefore, not subject to the public access requirements. The City Manager responded that federal funds have been utilized in the purchase of much of the property around Twin Lake for open space purposes. He stated that there is no way that the lake could be designated as a private lake. He added that even if there was no access to Twin Lake, the lake would still be a public lake. Councilman Kuefler inquired if an attitude survey taken a few years ago was considered by the tri -city Twin Lake Committee in their research of the matter. Council - man Lhotka responded that that survey was considered and also a survey of both Robbinsdale and Crystal resi- dents was taken. He stated that the results of the survey were that approximately 70% felt that horsepower of boats should be limited. Councilman Fignar clarified that the survey results had to do with limiting horsepower of boats and not restricting them totally. Councilman Britts stated that Twin Lake is different in size from such lakes as Medicine Lake and a number of the other bigger lakes in Hennepin County. He pointed out that one of the problems regarding patrolling and enforcing various watercraft use laws is that we cannot get patrolling on Twin Lake. He further stated that he felt that the only options available were to either ban the use of motors or not ban them. He added that he understands a number of the concerns that were brought up regarding the Brooklyn Center access to Twin Lake stating that it is a well maintained blacktop type of access that is very conducive for launching boats He wondered if not maintaining the access would have any kind of effect on the boating problem. Mrs. James, 5630 Twin Lake Terrace, Crystal, stated that she felt not maintaining the access to Twin Lake would make a substantial difference. She added that people would not bring their boats to Twin Lake if access to it was difficult. -9- 7 -11 -77 Further discussion ensued relative to boating regulations and the resolution before the CPuncil. Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: . NO. 77 -135 RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WATER SURFACE USE REGULATION ON TWIN LAKE 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts , Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :55 p.m. Recess and resumed at 9 :35 p.m. The City Manager introduced the next item of business Dutch Elm Disease on the agenda, that of two resolutions, one recommended Program for the purpose of establishing Improvement Project No. 1977 -11 which relates to the Dutch elm disease control program, and the other recommended for the purpose of authorizing bids to be taken for the Dutch elm disease control program. He stated that the recommendation is not a common method for attacking the Dutch elm disease problem but that this method has been utilized successfully in other communities such as Robbinsdale. He explained that it seems more feasible to have one single contractor handle the removal of diseased elm trees for the City rather than to negotiate the removal of each tree at the time that it must be removed. He further explained that the contract would permit the City, at its option, to have public and private property diseased shade trees removed by one tree removal service based on the bids obtained. The City Manager stated that the City Council might well want to consider other actions relating to its Dutch elm disease program such as the licensing of tree contractors that do business within the City. He explained that because of the preponderance of Dutch elm disease the possibility of citizens being ripped off by unscrupulous contractors has increased. He added that some people assert that the licensing of tree contractors will cause the price for the service to be increased, while on the other hand if citizens are being fleeced by the contractors local government should become involved to protect its citizens. A brief discussion ensued relative to the recommendations with the City Manager explaining that this contract arrangement between the City and the tree removal con- tractor would not prohibit other contractors from providing their services to citizens within the City. The City Manager next reviewed recent amendments to the Shade Tree Disease Control Law. He explained that the City did not participate in the State subsidy program . in 1976 primarily because ad valorem taxes had to be utilized to underwrite the subsidy and the Council felt it could not be effectively done because of the City's 7 -11 -77 -10- - levy limitation. He stated that the present law modifies this provision and now permits cities with approved shade tree disease control programs, which the City has, to receive grants not to exceed 45% of the sanita- tion costs approved by the Commissioner of Agriculture including any amount of sanitation costs paid by special assessments, ad valorem taxes, federal grants or other funds. He pointed out that in addition subsidy grants for the replacement of trees on public property not exceeding $45 per tree has also been provided. The City Manager reported that various problems with the law have developed. He pointed out that the 45% subsidy is retroactive to January 1, 1977, but based on Department of Agriculture interpretation of the law the 45% reimbursement can only be obtained if the property owner had been specially assessed by the City for the removal of the tree. The City Manager stated that the interpretation has in effect done away with the "or other funds" which would be allowable for reimbursement. He pointed out that this interpre- tation will affect a number of residents of Brooklyn Center that have removed diseased elm trees, at the order of the City, by utilizing their own funds. He added that the interpretation also means that persons removing diseased elm trees that wish to take advantage of the reimbursement must do so through the special assessment process. The City Manager reported that a letter has been sent to Peter Grills, Shade Tree Program Grants Administrator, requesting a clarification of the Department of Agriculture interpretation. He added that Councilman Lhotka has also talked with Senator Skip Humphrey, who authored the bill in the State Legislature, regarding these problems. He stated that to date we have received no response from the Department of Agriculture regarding our inquiry. He explained that Senator Humphrey seems to be sympathetic regarding the problems but is also concerned that the subsidy program might be abused and, thus, tends to favor the special assessment process as a means of avoiding these problems. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Britts the City Manager stated that it is true that the City can apply for a 45% reimbursement for the removal of private property diseased elm trees provided it is done through the special assessment process but that it is not -that simple in that administrative costs would have to be charged to the property owner, notices would have to be sent, hearings would also have to be held and that there is also the problem of people not paying special assessments. He added that by utilizing the special assessment process the private property owner's initiative to remove the tree on his own and at his own expense is also destroyed because there will be no reimbursement for out -of- pocket expenses. The City Manager further explained that it is very difficult to respond to citizens that inquire about the Dutch elm disease subsidy because their only option for obtaining the reimbursement is to have the cost specially assessed to the property. -11- 7 -11 -77 Councilman Britts inquired if there was anything that could be done to help rectify these problems. The City Manager responded that Senator Humphrey is sympathetic to these problems but is also very concerned about potential abusives. He added that possibly the Senator could do something about it'. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the problems of the Dutch elm disease subsidy program with the City Manager and the Director of Public Works explaining the costs involved with special assessments for tree removal. Councilman Kuefler suggested the possibility of a resolution being directed to the Commissioner of Agriculture explaining the problems and stating the City's dissatisfaction with the interpretation of the law by - the Shade Tree Program Administrator. Following further discussion there was a motion by Council- Action Directing the man Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to direct Preparation of a the City Manager to prepare a resolution pointing out the Resolution problems associated with the approved method for obtaining Dutch elm disease subsidies and the City Council's dissatis- faction with the interpretation of the law by the Shade Tree Program Administrator. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The City Manager next reported on the proposed special assessment method for persons choosing to have their trees removed in this manner. He explained that the property owner would be specially assessed for 55% of the removal costs with the remaining costs being reim- bursed to the City from the State. Regarding boulevard elms, the City Manager stated that by law no more than 50 of the cost can be charged to the property owner, thus, the property owner and the City would split the cost of tree removal equally and the 45% reimbursement provided this was done through the special assessment process. He explained that this would be a change in present City policy that requires the property owner to be responsible for the total cost of cutting down the boulevard tree with the City handling the disposal of the trees by hauling them away. Regarding public property trees, the City Manager reported that the City would receive a 45% reimbursement, utilizing any method that the City wishes for the removal of the diseased trees. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the Dutch elm disease program with Councilman Kuefler requesting the City Manager to prepare an example sheet showing the various options available to property owners for making use of these State funds. Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -136 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -11 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 -11 -77 -12- RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -137 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -11 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1977 -G) 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: Philip Cohen,, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said. resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CounciIman Fignar inquired at what point the City should decide Ito license tree contractors. The City Manager responded by suggesting that the Council consider licensing contractors if and when they receive a number of complaints regarding unscrupulous or undesirable activities . RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -138 and mowed its adoption: RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO APPLY FOR REHABILITATION GRANT FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 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: .Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -139 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDUCTION OF SUBDIVISION BOND FOR WEST RIVER ESTATES ADDITION ., 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: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution NO. 77 -140 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL AID PROJECT 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. -13- 7 -11 -77 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following ordinance ORDINANCE and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -9 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 RELATIVE TO DISTANCE OF MAILED NOTICES FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT HEARINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35 -220 1 (d) of the City Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: (d) Not less than seven (7) days before the date of the hearing, the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the property owners or occupants of all property within 150 feet (including streets) of the subject property when it is within the R -1 or R -2 districts; and to the property owners or occupants of all property within 350 feet (including streets) of the subject property when it is within any district other than R -1 or R-2 The failure of any such owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings hereunder. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 11th day of July, 1977. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts , Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Noisy Parties that of an ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances providing for the abatement of noisy parties. He stated that the ordinance was first read on June 6, 1977, was published on June 16, 1977 and is recommended this evening for second reading and adoption. Councilman Fignar stated that he has received several comments from a number of people who feel the 10:00 p.m. time limit contained in Section 19 -1.202 of the proposed ordinance is unreasonable. He explained that a number of people do not work the normal daytime working hours and often have parties in their homes later in the evening. He further explained that because of the 10:00 p.m. time limit these persons might well be subject to the provisions of this ordinance. He felt that it would be more appropriate to have 12:00 midnight as the time limit for the ordinance. Councilman Britts stated that he too has received comments relative to the early hour of 10 :00 p.m. as the effective time of this ordinance. He added that 12 :00 midnight would seem to be a more reasonable hour. He further stated that he has received other comments regarding the ordinance that have to do with the possibility of the ordinance being used for harassment purposes. He explained that a spiteful neighbor could utilize this ordinance to complain to police about a 7 -11 -77 -14 neighborhood party that is really not disturbing the peace. He added that it is also possible for a person living on one side of the town to complain about a party that is going on at the opposite end of town as a means of hara s s ment . He inquired as to what guarantees there are that this ordinance will not be. utilized for harassment purposes in personal or neighborhood differences. Councilman Kuefler responded that he felt the wording of the ordinance is such that the police officer responding to the complaint must use his discretion in determining what constitutes a noisy party which would have an effect on the harass- ment type complaints. Mayor Cohen stated that he shares the concerns relating to the hour contained in the ordinance and requested the City Attorney and City Manager to respond. The City Attorney stated that the responsibility of the officer responding to such a complaint is no different under this ordinance than under present disturbing the peace laws. He explained that the primary difference between this ordinance and disturbing the peace laws is that the proposed ordinance makes it a misdemeanor to be at a noisy party. and that any person at such a noisy party could be arrested if they do not leave the premises or cease the noise after they have been requested to do so. He further explained that the proposed ordinance does not change the police department's discretion in handling such matters but only affects the manner of enforcement. The City Manager stated that a police officer could still be called out under the present disturbing the peace law even prior to 10 :00 p.m, if a complaint has been received regarding a noisy party or disturbance of the peace. He pointed out that police officers do not go to such complaints with the intention of arresting someone but are looking primarily for an assurance that the noise will cease. He added that the proposed ordinance affects only the manner of enforcement and gives the officer a little bit more leverage to negotiate compliance with the law. Councilman Fignar commented that he generally supports the ordinance but has problems with the time limits contained. He stated that he feels 12:00 midnight would be more reasonable than 10:00 p.m. The City Manager responded that there is nothing magic about 10:00 p.m. He added that police officers are still going to be called out at earlier hours because of noisy parties and might have to respond that they cannot enforce the noisy party ordinance until after midnight. Councilman Fignar inquired if there was a need for a time limit at all in the ordinance. The City Manager responded that the police department had at first recommended that the time limit in the ordinance be from 7 :00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m. but that this was modified to 10:00 p.m. to 7 :00 a.m. because it was felt that most people seem to settle into repose about that time. He pointed out that the time limit is a subjective type of decision and the Council should decide on whether or not there is even a need for such a time limit. -15- 7 -11 -77 Councilman Britts commented that the problem is really one of urbanization which requires the need for rules such as this. He stated that perhaps Councilman Fignar is right and there is no • real need for a time limit if we are concerned primarily with the enforcement of disturbance complaints. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Lhotka the City Manager stated that presently officers utilize disturbing the peace statutes for enforcement purposes, and that the proposed ordinance further defines who can be held accountable for the disturbance. He added that the proposed ordinance holds accountable anyone who is presently at a noisy party. Councilman Britts inquired if the ordinance requires a police officer to warn persons that they are in violation prior to making an arrest. The City Manager responded that officers are not required by the ordinance to do so but that it is the police department's routine procedure to first warn that the party is a disturbance and request that the noise cease. He commented that officers generally do not like this type of complaint and that there primary concern is to have the noise stop. He added that if the officer must go back again because the disturbance is continuing, he will probably warn again prior to making any arrests. He reiterated that the police department is concerned with quieting the disturbance, not with making arrests and that the ordinance would gave the officer more leverage in gaining this compliance. Councilman Lhotka stated that this ordinance is primarily geared toward persons living in apartments and added that many persons living in single family homes feel they will be subject to the restrictions of this ordinance due to the actions of people living in apartments. The City Manager responded that that is a sanctimonious type attitude on the part of people living in single family homes. He stated that if property owners in single family homes are not disturbing the peace by having a party, they will not be bothered. Mayor Cohen stated that it has been his experi- ence that many of the major problems associated with noisy parties and disturbance of the peace emanate from single family homeowners and added that these people often cause more problems by becoming lippy and abusive to police officers. He pointed out that his major concern is that the noise and disturbance cease once it becomes bothersome to other people. Councilman Kuefler stated that presently we are asking police officers to make a determination as to whether or not there is a disturbance, but after it has been established that there is a disturbance, we have not adequately given the officer the tools needed to make the disturbance stop. He pointed out that under the proposed ordinance the officer has the discretion to give people the benefit of the doubt if he feels it is a harassment complaint or if a party agrees to keep the noise down, and if no compliance is obtained after the warning he has the authority to arrest anyone at the party that will not comply with the ordinance. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the proposed ordinance with the City Manager recommending that the City Council have an amended first reading this evening and then, following the publication of the entire ordinance, hold a second reading. 7 -11 -77 -16- ORDINANCE Following further discussion there was a motion by Council - Amended First Reading man Fignar and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to amend the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances providing for the abatement of noisy parties by striking the words "between the hours of 10 :00 p. m, and 7 :00 a. m. " from Section 19 -1202 and offer this amended version for first reading. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Kuefler,and Fignar. Voting against: Councilmen Britts and Lhotka. The motion passed. Councilman Lhotka left the table at 11:25 p.m. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Britts the City Attorney stated that the previous action taken by the City Council was to amend the proposed ordinance and offer it for first reading. He explained that the amended version will be published and then presented to the City Council for a second reading and public hearing at which time the ordinance could be adopted. Councilman Lhotka returned to the table at 11:27 p.m. ORDINANCE Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance NO. 77 -10 and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE VACATING EMERGENCY WATER EASEMENTS EXISTING ON LOTS 15 ,AND 16, BLOCK 6, PEARSON'S NORTHPORT 3RD ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1: The emergency water easements existing on Lots 15 and 16, Block 6, Pearson's Northport 3rd Add below described are hereby vacated as emergency water easements " The southerly 5 feet of the easterly 123.6 feet of Lot 15, Block 6, Pearson' Northport 3rd Addition according to the plat of record thereof, files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota and. The northerly 5 feet of the easterly 102.6 feet and the northerly 11 feet of the westerly 26 feet, except the westerly 5 feet thereof, of Lot 16, Block 6, Pearson's Northport 3rd Addition, according to the plat of record thereo files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. " Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 11th day of July, 1977. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. -17- 7 -11 -77 The City Manager introduced the next item of business by Joint Commission stating that it had been requested that the City Council Meeting meet with all of the advisory commissions to discuss the mandatory planning and critical areas planning programs and the effect, if any, of these programs on the various commis- sions. He recommended that the City Council consider establishment of a date for this joint commission meeting. Mayor Cohen suggested that the joint commission meeting be held on Monday, August 15, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. A brief discussion ensued relative to the proposed joint commission meeting. Mayor Cohen requested that an agenda be prepared for that meeting and also some brief information made available to the various commissions. In response to an inquiry the City Manager stated that the Director of Planning and Inspection would be available to brief the commissions on what the manda- tory planning legislation and critical areas programs entail, and what effect they have on the commissions. Councilman Britts commented that it had been previously mentioned that a joint commission meeting be held to discuss the Open Meeting Law and suggested that this also be included on the agenda for that meeting. Mayor Cohen stated that the joint meeting would be an opportune time to discuss the Open Meeting Law with the various advisory commissions. The City Manager suggested that the Charter Commission also be invited to attend the meeting. Following further discussion it was the consensus of the City Council to establish Monday, August 15, 1977, at 7 :30 p.m. as the date and time for a joint commission meeting to discuss the mandatory planning and critical areas planning programs and also the Open Meeting Law. Councilman Kuefler reported on the status of his discussion Off ical Newspaper with Post Publications regarding their designation as official Report newspaper and that newspaper's policies and practices. He explained that he has been in contact with Bob Bork, Post Publications editor, who has informed him that Post Publications is putting together a policy guide which should be available within the next few weeks. The City Manager next reported on the extent of delinquent Delinquent Taxes taxes within the City. He stated that he has never had to Report bring such a report to the City Council's attention in the past but because of some changing patterns in delinquent property taxes he felt that it should be done. He briefly reviewed the City's tax collection record and stated that the City generally collects about 90% of the property taxes due each year. He explained that this is considered a fairly good average. He further reported that he recently reviewed a report that seems to indicate that tax delinquencies are increasing and pointed out that this is a matter that should be of concern to the City Council in that tax delinquencies affect the City's bond rating, the City's ability to pay bonded indebtedness and also the taxing authority's ability to collect estimated revenues that it depends on for operating expenses. He next reviewed a color coded City map depicting the properties that are tax delinquent and the number of years that they have been delinquent. He explained that it seems that Brooklyn Center Independent School District #286, which includes the Industrial Park, seems to be affected most by tax delinquencies. He pointed out that a great number of delinquencies are in the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. He also pointed out various other tax delinquent parcels in the City and stated that the one or two year delinquencies are not as bi g a concern as are the ones that have been delinquent for longer periods of time. He explained that if property taxes are not paid for seven years, the property 7 -11 -77 -18 is declared tax- delinquent and becomes the property of the State of Minnesota to be sold by the County after first giving the City the opportunity to obtain it. In response to an inquiry by Mayor Cohen, the City Manager explained that a recent amendment to State statutes now permits the City to obtain special assess - ments charged to tax delinquent property once the title to.the property has changed where previously the City could not. A discussion ensued relative to the City Manager's report with the Mayor stating that the City Council should give consideration to making recommendations to the State Legislature that this problem be addressed. The City Manager concurred and added that the City Council should stress that the problem seems more widespread among commercial and industrial properties that are probably utilizing this as a business philosophy for controlling the use of capital and then paying back taxes short of the time the property would be declared delinquent. Councilman Lhotka inquired if it would be possible to acquire the payment of back taxes as a requirement for various licenses required of these businesses. The City Manager responded that this might be something that the City Ccuncil Would want researched further. He pointed out that the City presently requires that back taxes be paid as part of the requirement for a for a liquor license or a renewal of that license. He added that the payment of delinquent taxes serves a social purpose because delinquent taxes affect the taxing authority's bond rating and their ability to collect estimated revenues. The City Manager concluded his report by stating that it was not his intention to point a finger at anyone in particular but to bring this matter to the City Council's attention as something that they should be well aware of. Mayor Cohen requested the City Manager to convey the information contained in his report to the Brooklyn Center School District Superintendent. Following further discussion there was a motion by Council- man Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Fignar to direct the City Attorney to research the legality of requiring the payment of delinquent taxes as a condition of license approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Licenses The next item of business was consideration of a list of licenses recommended for City Council approval. The City Manager recommended the addition of a late license request for an itinerant food establishment license for K -Mart for July 14 through July 17. Councilman Lhotka, referring to garbage and refuse collection vehicle licenses, inquired if they were inspected to see if they are equipped with backup alarm devices. The City Manager responded that he would convey the Councilman's concern to the City Sanitarian as something -19- 7 -11 -77 to be checked during the inspection of the vehicles. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Fignar to approve the following list of licenses: BINGO LICENSE St. Alphonsus 7025 Halifax Ave. N. (Fun Fair) GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Bautch Disposal Service 2931 Marshall St. N.E. Browning- Ferris Industries 9813 Flying Cloud Dr. Countrywide Sanitation, Inc. P.O. Box 46, Montrose Art Willman & Son 51 28th Ave. N. ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE St. Alphonsus 7025 Halifax Ave. N. (Fun Fair) K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Drive MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Air Conditioning Associates 689 Pierce Butler Rt. SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Chippewa Park Apts. 6507 Camden Ave. N. Moorwood Homeowners Assoc. 8200 Normandale Blvd. TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE St. Alphonsus 7025 Halifax Ave. N. (Fun Fair) Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In response to an inquiry Mayor Cohen stated that there Special City would be a special meeting of the City Council on Council Meeting Monday, July 18, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. He explained that Mr. Loren Law would be present to discuss with the City Council his efforts for recruiting a new city manager. Councilman Britts commented that the City has an ordinance Fire Sprinkler which requires fire sprinkler systems for various buildings but Ordinance that it does-not seem that the ordinance requires that these systems be tested. He inquired if the ordinance could be researched by the staff and various recommendations made so that it is required that these sprinkler systems be tested. The City Manager responded that he felt the ordinance did require that these sprinkler systems be tested but that the matter would be researched and the inquiry responded to. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Adjournment Lhotka to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12 :03 a.m. lerk Mayor 7 -11 -77 -20-