Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 09-19 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 SEPTEMBER 19, 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 Philip Cohen, Councilmen Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka. ` Also present were Acting City Manager James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, and Administrative Assistants Ronald Warren Brad Hoffman, and Mary Harty. Invocation The invocation was offered by Pastor Ringhiser from the Brooklyn Center Church of the Nazarene. Approval of Minutes Councilman Kuefler stated that the September 7, 1977 City 9 -7 -77 Council minutes incorrectly identified Roger Scherer as a former State Senator. He explained that Mr. Scherer was a former State Representative and not a State Senator, and requested that the minutes be so corrected. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Fignar to approve the minutes of the September 7, 1977 special City Council meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unani- mously. Approval of Excerpts The Acting City Manager reported that excerpts from the of Minutes 9 -17 -77 September 17, 1977 special City Council meeting have been prepared and are recommended for City Council approval. He explained that the portion of the minutes submitted relates to the appointment of Gerald G. Splinter as city manager and contains a resolution adopted by the City Council setting forth conditions of employment. He stated that the resolution is modeled after a resolution setting forth conditions of employment for the former city manager. He pointed out that condition No. 12 in the resolution, which relates to involun- tary resignation or dismissal, is somewhat different and makes use of ICMA terminology relating to the conviction of any illegal act involving personal gain. The City Attorney stated that the term "just cause" is a broader term than the use of the words "illegal act" and "personal gain". He suggested that the Council consider using the word "pecuniary gain" for "personal gain" and the word "crime" for the words "illegal act' Mayor Cohen stated that . he sees no problem with the wording as it is now but suggested that the City Council at a later time change t.he wording in the resolution as suggested by the City Attorney. The City Attorney responded that this would be appropriate. In response to a question by Councilman Britts, the City Attorney stated that "just cause" is a broader term than personal gain and illegal acts and also includes such things as incompetency. Following further discussion it was the -1- 9 -19 -77 consensus of the City Council that the terms of Resolution No. 77 -16£3 which set forth the conditions of employment for the new city manager be modified in line with the previous discussion after the city manager begins his employment. Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve the excerpts of the September 17, 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. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its ardoption: NO. 77 -169 • RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC EFFORT'S OF THE T.H. 169 PETITIONERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resoiution 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. Councilman Britts stated that at the September 12 , 1977 City Council meeting a suggestion had been made regarding e the possible formulation of a citizens traffic safety advisory committee to look at traffic problems in the City and make various recommendations to the City - Council regarding addressing these problems. He inquired if this matter had been further pursued, Mayor Cohen responded that he has requested Mr. Arnie Foslien to follow up on the idea and to - put his recommendations in writing and meet with the Acting City Manager to see if such an advisory committee is feasible. He explained that he will be meeting with Mr. Foslien in the near future and that this matter will be followed up on. Mayor Cohen requested the Acting City Manager to send a copy of the just adopted resolution expressing recognition of and appreciation for the dedicated public efforts of the T.H. 169 petitioners to Mr, and Mrs Frank Barry who had presented the petition to the City Council and also to Mr, and Mrs. Roger Scherer. Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and RESOLUTION moved its adoption: NO. 77 -170 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES 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 9 -19 -77 -2- Improvement Project The Acting City Manager introduced the next item of business Nos. 1977 -15, 16, 17, on the agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the & 18 purpose of establishing Trunk Water Main Improvement Project No. 1977 -15, Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1 977 -16, Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1977 -17, and Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No.- 1977 -18. He stated that the projects will provide the necessary utility and street improvements for Phase II of The Ponds subdivision along Unity Avenue North, north of 69th Avenue. The Acting City Manager recalled that the City Council, at the September 12, 1977 meeting, when reviewing Planning Commission Application No. 76041 -A was concerned about speeding up the rejuvenation and restoration of the area, and had requested the developer to submit a new schedule prior to establishing utility projects for the area. He explained that Mr. Dietrich has responded with a letter updating the schedule. He stated that the rejuvenation and restoration process will begin prior to October 1, 1977. He stated that it is recommenc'_ed that the projects be established. RESOLUTION Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and NO. 77 -171 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TRUNK WATER MAIN IMPROVE - MENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -15, SANITARY SEWER IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -16, STREET SURFACING IMPROVE - MENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -17, AND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -18; AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND 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 resolutioni was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and NO, 77 -172 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET SURFACING IMPROVE- MENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -19 AND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -20 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 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. r r RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and NO. 77 -173 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -21 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS -3- 9 -19 -77 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. The Acting City Manager reported that 1976 amendments Revenue Sharing to the Federal Revenue Sharing .Act require local. governments Hearing to hold a public hearing on the proposed use of Revenue Sharing Funds., He recommended that the City Council convene the proposed use public hearing and then table the matter until later in the evening so that it can be considered concurrently' with the 1978 budget hearing deliberation. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to convene the Revenue Sharing Proposed Use public hearing and to table the matter until later in the meeting so that it can be held concurrently with the 1978 budget hearing deliberation. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced the next item of busi- Special Assessment ness , that of the annual special assessment hearings Hearings scheduled for this evening Mayor Cohen briefly reviewed the procedure that would be followed during the hearings, stating that the Acting City Manager /Director of Public Works would present the projects, the Council would then have the opportunity to comment and inquire relative to them, and the hearing would then be opened to notified property owners for their comments. The Acting City Manager briefly reviewed Minnesota Statutes relating to special assessment hearings. He explained that public hearings for these improvement projects were held prior to the time the Council had established them and that at that time preliminary estimates were given regarding the costs He stated that the final costs for these improvement projects have now been determined and that the purpose of this evening's hearings is for affected property owners to comment regarding the method of assessing these projects. He further explained that notices have been sent to the affected property owners and that notice of this evening's public hearings were posted in the City's official legal newspaper. He briefly reviewed the special assessment policies and commented that interest would not be charged on the projects if they were paid prior to November 15, 1977. He further stated that the interest rate for special assess - ments has been set at 8% compounded annually. The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1977 -5. Mayor Improvement Project Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No. 1977 -5 No one was present to sneak for or against the proposed assessment. 9 -19 -77 -4- Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing on the assessment for Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1977 -5 Voting in favor Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Street Surfacing The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed Improvement Project Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1977 -6. Mayor No. 1977 -6 Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assessment. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing on the assessment for Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1977 -6 Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Water Main Improve- The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed ment Project No. 1977 -7 Water Main Improvement Project No. 1977 -7. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assess- ment. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing on the assessment for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1977 -7. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Sanitary Sewer Improve- The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed ment Project No. 1977 -8 Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1977 -8. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assess- ment Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to close the public hearing on the assessment for Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1977 -8. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Water Main Improve- The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed ment Project No. 1977 -1 Water Main Improvement Project No. 1977-1. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assessment. Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to close the public hearing on the assessment for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1.977-1. Voting'in favor:-.Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ' Sanitary Sewer Improve- The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed ment Project No. 1977 -2 Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No: 1977 -2. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assess - ment -5- 9 -19 -77 Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Fignar to close the public hearing on the assessment for Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1977 -2. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed Grading, Base and Grading, Base, and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1974 --32. Surfacing Improvement Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. Project No. 1974 -32 No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assessment. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing on the assessment for Grading, Base,and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1974 -32. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced and briefly reviewed Curb and Gutter Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1974 -33. Mayor Improvement Project Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No No. 1974 -33 one was present to speak for or against the proposed assess- ment. Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to close the public hearing on the assessment for Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1974 -33. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: "none. 'The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager briefly reviewed the sanitary Sanitary Sewer sewer hookup project for The Ponds located at 69th and Hookup Unity Avenues North. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assessment. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to close the public hearing on the assessment for sanitary sewer hookup for The Ponds. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unani- mously. The Acting City Manager briefly reviewed water hookups Water Hookups for 5837 James Avenue North, 6724 Willow Lane, and 6915 Indiana Avenue North. Mayer Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one was present to speak for or against the proposed assessment. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing on the assessment for water hookups at 5837 James Avenue North, 6724 Willow Lane, and 6915 Indiana Avenue North. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka.. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 9 -19 -77 -6- RESOLUTION Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and NO. 77 -174 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT 1977 -1 AND 1977 -7; AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1977 -2, 1977 -5 AND 1977 -8; AND STREET SURFACING IMPROVEMENT 1977 -6; AND GRADING, BASE AND SURFACING IMPROVEMENT 1974 -_32; AND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENT 1974 -33; AND PUBLIC UTILITIES .WATER HOOKUPS AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUPS 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 and NO. 77 -175 moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -12 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1977 -H) 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 and NO. 77 -176 moved its adoption: ° RESOLUT ION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -12 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, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilman Kuefler was away from the table at the time of the vote. Hennepin County The Acting City Manager introduced the next item of business LAWCON Grant on the agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the Application purpose of supporting the Hennepin County Park Board Reserve in its efforts to procure a LAWCON grant application far acquisition of property for the implementation of a Hennepin County trailway system through the north suburban area. He stated that representatives of the Hennepin County Park Board Reserve have requested support from Brooklyn Center and ether north suburban communities to procure this LAWCON grant. He pointed out that the funds the Hennepin County Park Board Reserve is seeking through this LAWCON grant application is not in competition with LAWCON funds being -7- 9 -19 -77 sought for the trailway system in Brooklyn Center or the development of Central Park. The Acting City Manager then briefly reviewed various slides depicting the areas proposed by Hennepin County for the trailway system. Councilman Kuefler returned to the table at 8 :30 p.m. A brief discussion ensued relative to the recommended resolution, particularly that the portion that says the proposed trail corridor will be readily accessible for such activities as hiking, bicycling, cross country skiing, horseback riding, and snowmobiling. It was the consensus of the Council that reference to horseback riding and snowmobiling be deleted from the resolution. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Lhotka the Acting City Manager stated that this resolution does not provide a commitment at this time on the City's part to spend money for the project. Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution RESOLUTION and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -177 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PARK RESERVE DISTRICT'S EFFORT TO SECURE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND CONTINGENCY RESERVES FOR THE NORTH HENNEPIN TRAIL CORRIDOR 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. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and Recess resumed at 8 :57 p.m. The Acting City Manager introduced the next item of business Planning Commission on the agenda, that of Planning Commission Application No. Application No. 77047 77047 submitted by Mark Laberda. (Mark Laberda) The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77047 and the Planning Commission action at its September 14, 1977 meeting. He stated that the applicant is seeking a variance from Section 35 -400 of the City Ordinances to permit a modifica- tion to the small single family home, located at 5446 Humboldt .Avenue North, which consists of the expansion of the living and sleeping areas at the front of the home. He explained that the property was a 40 foot R2 lot and that there were existing setback deficiencies: the front setback being 29 feet versus the present ordinance requirement of 35 feet, and the side setback on the north being approximately 4 feet versus the required 10 feet side yard setback. He reported that the proposed addition would extend into the front yard. setback 2 feet for a total new variance from the current standard of 8 feet. He pointed out that the applicant's proposal would fill in a notch on the north side of the house, and the new wall would be in line with the existing wall approximately 4 feet from the property line. He also reported that aerial photographs of the area.have been reviewed and that it was noted that many dwellings in the area do not have the required 35 foot front setback. 9-19 -77 -8- He explained that there was an earlier setback standard of 25 feet and that the applicant's neighbor to the north has a front yard setback of 30.5 feet and the neighbor to the south has a setback of 26.4 feet. He commented that the 2 foot addition to the front of the applicant's home does not aggravate the present noncomplying setback condition. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property, and a brief discussion ensued relative to the application. In response to a question by Councilman Britts, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the applicant's proposal would not exceed already existing setbacks in the neighborhood. To an inquiry by Mayor Cohen, the Director of Planning and Inspection responded that the building official has inspected the property and it is structurally sound with the exception of some minor foundation work that the applicant proposes to rectify. Mayor Cohen recognized the applicant, Mark Laberda, who stated that he had nothing further to add to the appli- cation. Public Hearing Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. No one spoke relating to the application. Action Approving Following further discussion there was a motion by Council- Planning Commission man Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve Application No. 77047 Planning Commission Application No. 77047 submitted by (Mark Laberda) Mark Laberda subject to an inspection of the building_ to determine code compliance and structural soundness of the building; and to the condition that the structure and systems be brought into compliance as determined by the building official. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Council- men Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission The Acting City Manager introduced the next item of busi- Application No. 77026 ness, that of Planning Commission Application No. 77026 (Real Estate 10) submitted by Real Estate 10. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review. of Planning Commission Application No. 77026 and the Planning Commission action at its July 20 and September 14, 1977 meetings. He stated that the applicant proposed a rezoning from Rl (single family residential) to C1 (service /office commercial) of the triangular parcel on the east side of T.H. 152 bounded by the highway, and on the north by the municipal boundary, and on the southeast by the Shingle Creek greenstrip ease- ment. He explained that the applicant proposed to construct an office building and intended to remove the existing single family structure from the property He added that there are no public utilities to this property but that it is possible to construct the necessary utility lines. He reported that the Comprehensive Plan provides for future maximum development along Brooklyn Boulevard of service/ office versus retail type uses, and'that this sp- ecific parcel was not classified by the Comprehensive Plan other than as the existing single family use. He reported that one of the considerations for leaving the property zoned R -1 in 1968 was the lack of sewer and water, and that no develop ruent other than single family use could be permitted until the utility service connection was provided. He stated that -9- 9-•19 -77 construction would be costly, and it appeared to be virtually prohibitive for single family development. The Director of Planning-and Inspection reported that the Planning Commission at its July 20, 1977 meeting had tabled further consideration of this application and referred it to the northwest neighborhood advisory group for their review and comment. He stated that the neighborhood advisory group had reviewed the request and responded by a letter in which the advisory group unanimously recommended approval of the application. He stated that the northwest neighborhood advisory group had also recommended that no parking be permitted on the 100 foot easement for utility and access along Shingle Creek. He also reported that the Planning Commission, on September 14, 1977, again reviewed the request in terms of the recently adopted rezoning evaluation policy and criteria, and it was the consensus of the Commission that the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the guidelines of the review, policy and did not constitute "spot zoning" . He also reported that the Planning Commission had adopted Resolution No. 77 -5 recommending approval of Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 77026 submitted by Real Estate 10. He briefly reviewed the resolution with the City Council. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question, and a brief discussion ensued. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Kuefler the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address this property other than as the existing single family use. He stated that generally the Comprehensive Plan calls for Brooklyn Boulevard to be developed with low intensity commercial and service /office uses. He next reviewed various slides depicting the area in question. Mayor Cohen recognized 'Mr. Bill Peterson, the architect representing Real Estate 10, who showed the City Council a drawing'of the proposed 10,000 square foot office building. He stated that during the neighborhood advisory group review of the proposal that group had stated that there would be ade- quate buffering around the office building with existing trees and had suggested that as many of the trees be retained as- possible. He pointed out that some trees would have to be removed but hopefully these trees can be transplanted else- where on the parcel. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property owners. Public Hearing No one spoke relating to the application. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the City Attorney responding to a question by Mayor Cohen by stating that the neighborhood advisory groups are an adjunct of the Planning Commission and are expected to be utilized in that way. He stated that the neighborhood advisory groups are utilized to derive facts and report these facts to the Planning Commission for use in their review of the application, and that they should be utilized in this respect as long as the facts they arrive at are indeed facts. 9 -19 -77 -10 For purposes of the record Mayor Cohen stated that the City of Brooklyn Park and the Osseo School District had been notified of the proposed rezoning and of the date and time for this public hearing. Action Approving Following further discussion there was a motion by Council Planning Commission man Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Fignar to approve Application No. 77026 Planning Commission Application No.' 77026 submitted by (Real Estate 10) Real Estate 10 based on the following conditions: I . The proposed zoning consistent with Com- prehensive Plan guidelines for development along Brooklyn Boulevard. 2. The requested proposed zoning has been reviewed in terms of the recently adopted rezoning evalua- tion-policy and criteria, and has been found to be consistent with those guidelines 3. The subject property is relatively isolated from nearby residential development; abuts a major institutional use; and, due to the remoteness of public utilities, cannot be reasonably developed with R -1 uses 4. Approval is subject to the condition that the property shall be replatted through plat or registered land survey. 5 The protection and preservation of the environmentally sensitive and valuable Shingle Creek and adjacent greenstrip shall be thoroughly reviewed upon replat- ting and development of the subject property. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission The Acting City Manager -introduced the next item of business Application No. 77022 on the agenda, that of Planning Commission Application No. (L. W. Joel Company) 77022 submitted by the L. W. Joey Company. He stated that the application consists of an appeal per Section 35 -251 of the City Ordinances from an administrative denial of a building permit for construction on a substandard outlot at 5325 - 63rd Avenue North. He stated that this application was considered by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1977 at which time they adopted a resolution recommending denial of the appeal. He stated that the application was briefly reviewed by the City Council on June 20, 1977 and was continued until the next convenient City Council agenda because the applicant and /or his representative were not present at that meeting. He further stated that the applica- tion was again discussed at the August 22, 1 977 City Council and tabled until September 12, 1977 for further review by the staff. He added that on September 12, 1 977 the applicant requested that the application be tabled until September 19, 1977. He reported that the applicant is present and the matter is now before the City Council for their consideration. -11- 9 -19 -77 The Acting City Manager further reviewed the application and the previous consideration of the application by the City Council. He stated that the applicant proposes to build a single family home on a 45 foot wide outlot. He added that the applicant's request for a building permit was denied because there is adjacent land which may be combined with the outlot to render it buildable. He reported that the applicant's appeal contends that, not withstanding the outlot designation, the parcel is a lot of record within the meaning of Section 35 -500 of the zoning ordinance which provides that lots or parcels of legal record as of January 1, 1.976 which did not meet the requirements of the ordinance as to width or area, may nevertheless be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes provided: the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 square feet; and that the yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings are met. The Acting City Manager reported that the Director of Planning and Inspection has had discussions with Mr. Yesnes, the applicant, and also with the neighboring property owner. He stated that the adjacent property has enough land that could be subdivided and combined with the subject parcel to meet the standard 75 foot lot required by City Ordinance. The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a trans- parency of the area and noted the substandard 45 foot outlots in that area. He stated that in 1961 the Lyn Lee Addition was platted which added 30 foot outlots that were subsequently 'combined with adjacent outlots resulting in 75 foot lots which were built 'upon. He stated that the property in question is known as outlot 1 of Bergstrom's Addition. He further stated that the property had went forfeit for taxes in the early 1970's and that the applicant had recently purchased the property and made the request. He reported that the owner of the adjacent corner lot has since sold that lot to a Mr. Craig Weitzel, who is present at this evening's meeting and has been backgrounded on the subject. The Director of Planning and Inspection next briefly reviewed slides of the area and a brief discussion ensued relative to the application. Mayor Cohen inquired as to how much extra property could be subdivided off from the adjacent corner lot. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that at least the 30 feet needed to be combined with the applicant's property could be subdivided off the corner lot to be combined to make a 75 foot lot. Councilman Kuefler inquired what the applicant had paid for the lot in question. The Director of Planning and Inspec- tion responded that County records indicate that $1 ,500 was paid by the L. W. Joel Company for the payment of back taxes. He added that there could have been subsequent transactions but that the County was unable to account for them. In response to a question by Councilman Britts the Acting City Manager stated that the Director of Planning and Inspection had attempted to contact the previous owner of the property adjacent to Mr. Yesnes' property. He added that it is our understanding that he was asking 9- 1'9 -77 -12 approximately $9,000 for the 30 foot strip of land. He pointed out that recently that property was sold to Mr. Weitzel and to our knowledge there has been no contact between Mr. Weitzel and Mr. Yesnes regarding the.property. . Mayor Cohen stated that the City Council's concern is that the two parties are aware of each other and that hopefully they will work the matter out and a 75 foot lot would be realized. Councilman Kuefler stated that his concern was the undesirable 'precedent of permitting a lot less than 75 feet in an area of 75 foot lots Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Yesnes who stated that he has briefly discussed the matter of acquiring the strip of property from Mr. Weitzel. He stated that he was not the first person to purchase the property but had bought it from a Mr. Steve Coddon for more than $1,500. Mayor Cohen recognized Craig Weitzel who stated that he had briefly talked to Mr. Yesnes regarding selling a portion of his property adjacent to Mr. Yesnes' property. He further stated that at this time Mr. Yesnes' offer for the property is unreasonable. Mayor Cohen stated that the Council has no intention of getting involved in a private transaction regarding a possible transfer of property. He added that he felt the proper thing to do would be to continue further consideration of the appli- cation to give the two persons time to negotiate a possible sale of the property. He stated that he detects a feeling that the City Council wants to maintain 75 foot lots in this area if it is at all possible. Councilman Britts concurred with Mayor Cohen's suggestion stating that apparently this evening 'is the first time that the two gentlemen have had an opportunity to meet. He stated that he too favored continuing further consideration of the application to see if the two property owners can work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement. Mayor Cohen again recognized Mr. Yesnes who stated that he preferred that the City Council act on his application this evening. Ire stated that he and Mr. Weitzel are several thousand dollars apart and that he doubted that a mutually satisfactory arrangement could be made. A brief discussion ensued relative to Mr. Yesnes' request with Councilman Fignar stating that he is willing to act on the application this evening if it is agreeable to other members of the Council. Councilman Britts stated that he is also willing to act on the application this evening but that he felt it would be more logical to delay it to give the two gentlemen:: an opportunity to discuss the matter further. He added that as long as the applicant wishes the City Council to take action on the application this evening he favored going ahead with it. Action Requesting a Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Resolution Denying Fignar and seconded by Counciman Britts to direct the Acting Planning Commission City Manager to prepare a resolution denying Planning Com- Application No. 77022 mission Application No. 77022 submitted by the L. W. Joel (L. W. Joel Company) Company for the Council's adoption at the October 3, 1977 meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kue €ler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. f -13— 9-19 -77 Councilman Fignar left the t� ble at 10:08 p. m. The Acting City Manager reported that at the October 22, 1976 Liquor License c City Council meeting a- proposal to reduce the City's liquor Fees license fee was submitted by three current liquor license holders, namely Holiday Inn, Nino's, and Jimmy's Lemon Tree. He stated that the item was discussed by the Council at that time and was deferred to a later date. He further explained that he has received letters from Nino's and the Holiday Inn again requesting consideration for lowering the liquor license fees prior to the adoption of the 1978 budget. He reported that the City Council at the November 22, 1976 meeting had sought information regarding four areas dealing with liquor licensing; first, a cost assessment for administering a liquor license; second, a review of the City of Roseville's decision to lower their $10,000 liquor license fee; third, the control aspect of a high liquor license; and fourth, the legal implications of a high initial fee with a reduced renewal fee. _Councilman Fignar returned to the table at 10 :10 p.m. The Acting City Manager stated that the liquor license function is primarily a regulatory device to protect the general public. He explained that a license fee charged in connection with regulation is generally intended to cover the expense of inspections, services rendered and other expenses incurred as a result of regulating various business activity. He further stated that in making a fee adjustment consideration should be given to: first, the actual cost of administration and regulatory activities involved in the licensing; second, regulation through fees for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the municipality by limiting the number of applicants with reasonably high fees; and third, the prevention of the sale of licenses at high fees between private individuals. He further explained that a license is a grant of special privilege, and are issued as a regulatory device to insure compliance with established rules and regulations governing the activities being licensed. He pointed out that ordinarily license fees should not exceed the costs attributable to the administration of the license, plus the cost of issuance and enforcement or inspection. He further stated that in regards to licensing of potential nuisances, the courts have approved higher fees to allow municipalities to control the number of such nuisances. He further stated that liquor can be considered a nuisance and in Brooklyn, Center it is licensed as such. He explained that no liquor license fee, unless limited by statute, has ever been invalidated by the courts. The Acting City Manager pointed out that the issuance and administrative costs of a liquor license are very difficult to quantitatively analyze because of the various indirect associ- ated costs. He stated that some of these indirect associated costs relate to the enforcement of various state and local laws relating to liquor establishments and include such things as enforcement for the possession and consumption of liquor by a minor, gambling at liquor establishments, the posting of a liquor license, the hours of operation, unlawful discrimination, the refilling of liquor containers, in addition to any violation of Chapter 340 of the Minnesota Statutes. He stated that all of these responsibilities require reasonable and frequent inspection by the City with some substantial cost to the "City. He also stated that the City is required to do background investigations for initial liquor licenses and also for renewal of these licenses, and does charge a fee for these background investigation fees are lower than what could be required under - 9 -19 -77 -14- State law and that the background investigations, coupled with the responsibilities which require reasonable and cases would not totally frequent inspections, in some Y q p , cover all expenses incurred by the City in administering a liquor license. The Acting City Manager recommended that the present liquor license fee of $10,000 be retained as. a means of controlling the liquor nuisance which was the original intent of the City Council when.the liquor license fees were established. The Acting City Manager briefly commented regarding the City of Roseville's decision to lower their $10, 000 liquor license fee. He stated that the City of Roseville had received a similar request to reduce their $10,000 "on sale" liquor license fee from Nino's and the Holiday Inn in Roseville. He explained that Roseville had reduced its liquor license fees based solely on a survey of liquor license fees in surrounding communities. He added that it was their feeling that given the fee rate in the surrounding area, their liquor license fee was excessive. The City Attorney next addressed the question of the legal implications of a high initial fee with a reduced renewal fee. He stated that traditionally license fees are based on the costs attributable to the administration of the license. He added that this is not necessarily so with liquor license fees in that.the fee should be based on the associated costs and can also be used as a regulatory. device. He pointed out that the law allows a municipality to charge an investiga- tion fee. He stated that Brooklyn Center does so and that its initial investigation fee is higher than the investigation_ fee for the renewal of the license. He stated that, in essence, the total cost for the liquor license is reduced for renewal of the license in comparison with the initial license cost. He also stated that *he did not feel there was justifica- tion for lowering the renewal cost of a liquor license because the high license fee is used to control the number of potential nuisances generated by on -sale liquor establishments. He stated that if the City Council wishes to reduce liquor license fees, he would suggest that they look at the investi- gation fees for possible reduction. He pointed out that there is nothing in State law which would prohibit the City Council from having a high initial fee and a reduced renewal fee, but based on the concept of regulation and control, he would recommend that any change in the fees be done so only after a° thorough review and study of the matter prior to proceeding with such a change. In response to a question by Mayor Cohen, the Acting City Manager stated that there is a need for renewal investigations although they are not as detailed as initial investigations. Councilman Kuefler commented that the control aspects of liquor licensing are based on the theory that if the liquor license fee is kept high, there will be better quality establishments and, therefore, less problems. Councilman Britts commented that it seems that the City of Roseville lowered their liquor license fee only because of surrounding communities and had not taken into consideration the control factor. Mayor Cohen stated that the Council should also consider that the liquor license fee is a City revenue and to change this fee would mean a need for a corresponding change in the 1978 proposed budget: -15- - 9 -19 -77 Mayor Cohen then opened the meeting to representatives of liquor license holders in the City. He recognized Mr. Ned Delk of the Holiday Inn, who stated that they had felt their was some unfinished business from the November meeting when the City Council last discussed liquor license fees. He stated that the letter sent to the City Manager was for the purpose of bringing this to the City Council's attention so that this unfinished business could be addressed to. He stated that they would like to see, the liquor license fee reduced and pointed out that possibly there are other ways of raising revenue to offset any revenue loss to the City through such a reduction. . Mayor Cohen then recognized Michael Belknap of Cicero`s Restaurant. Mr. Belknap stated that he does not consider his business to be a nuisance to the City and added that he feels the restrictions in the City's present liquor license law and the police efforts have more to do with controlling the negative aspects of liquor than does the high liquor license fee. He questioned whether or not the $50,000 the City will be taking in in liquor license revenue in 1978 is an appropriate administrative fee. Roy Miller of Nino's Steak Roundup commented regarding the $10,000 liquor license fee. He stated that considering the annual salary of a Brooklyn Center sergeant at approxi- mately $19,000 and $10,000 for the use of a City car, the total expended would be approximately $29,000 per year for one person to address the various liquor related problems in the City. He stated that he did not feet that this much time and money was spent on liquor enforcement and admini- stration in.the City. Mr. Miller pointed out that Nino's has spent over $70,000 dollars in liquor license fees over the past seven years which is a great deal of money that does affect their operating costs. He added that this is a major consideration in light of the fact that Nino's is primarily a food orientated business rather than a liquor orientated business. Mayor Cohen stated that the $10,000 liquor license fee was . established in 1969 and that this fee, based on the Consumer Price Index for the Minneapolis -St. Paul area, has a reduced value today of $5,968, and that if the City desired to retain the same liquor license fee level established in 1969 that the on -sale liquor license today would cost $16,757. He added that the City's law enforcement budget in 1969 was approximately $300, 000, and that the proposed law enforce - ment budget for 1978 is over $800,000. He added that it had been pointed out by the former city manager at a recent City Council budget meeting that no matter how you looked at it to reduce liquor license fees would mean a subsidy to liquor license holders at the expense of the taxpayer. He added that he did not favor lowering the liquor license fees Councilman Kuefler stated that at the time the liquor referendum was adopted, the citizens of Brooklyn- Center had made it quite clear that they did not want the taxpayer to subsidize liquor license holders. He further stated that he agrees the present liquor license fee is high, but that the City has high quality liquor establishments and that they are all making a profit. He pointed out that recent liquor license applicants have not expressed any apprehension over the high liquor license fees and stated that the present fee structure is both good for the City in- terms of control and regulation and is also 9 -19 -77 -16- , good for the liquor license holders in that quality establish- ments are in Brooklyn Center. Councilman Kuefler further stated that he too does not favor lowering the liquor license fees. He stated that he felt it would be wrong to do so in terms of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Councilman Fignar stated that he originally favored reducing the liquor license fees when the subject was brought before the City Council in November, 1976. ' He further stated that he still has some of these feelings but pointed out that the background information presented to the City Council had shown him something that he was not aware of at the time, that being the promises and commitments made to the citizens and also to the clergy of the City of Brooklyn Center to get their support for the liquor referendum. He stated that these promises and commitments were that the high license fees would be used to control the negative aspects of liquor establishments and would allow quality restaurants rather than the "corner bar" establishments from operating in Brooklyn Center. He added that because of this he does not favor seducing the liquor licenses at this time. Councilman Lhotka stated that the City Council has to look at what is best for the community as a whole and not only what might be best for the businesses in this City. He added that the City Council has the responsibility to see that the costs of doing business in this City are not passed onto the citizens. He stated that he feels the $10,000 liquor license fee is not out of line and favors retaining it. Councilman Britts stated that he was not on the City Council in 1969 but that he well remembers the issue. He commented that he understands the feelings of the three businessmen which had previously addressed the City Council regarding lowering the fee but pointed out that based on the Consumer Price Index for the Twin City area, the City's liquor license fee would have to be in excess of $16,000 to maintain the liquor license level established in 1969. He further stated that the City Council is considering raising other licenses and fees for 1978 but is not considering raising the liquor license fee. He stated that he too feels the liquor license fee should remain at its present $10,000. Action to Maintain the Following further discussion there was a motion by Council - Present $10,000 Liquor man Lhotka and seconded by Councilman Kue.Lcler to retain License Fee the present $10,000 liquor license fee as is indicated in the 1978 proposed budget. Following the motion and the second thereof a brief discus- sion ensued with Mayor Cohen suggesting the possibility of requiring City Council approval before the matter of liquor license fees can again be on the City Council's agenda. The City Attorney suggested that the Council could table indefi- nitely the consideration of liquor license fees which would require an action by the City Council to bring the matter buck on the table for further consideration. Councilman Fignar stated that he did not favor tabling the matter indefinitely. A brief discussion ensued relative to Mayor Cohen's suggestion, parlimentary procedure and the effect such an action would have on the city manager's responsi- bility for developing the City Council's agenda. It was the consensus of the City Council to not amend the original motion on the table. -17 -. 9 -19 -77 Following the discussion a vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 11 :01 p.m. Recess . and resumed at 11 :10 p.m, .Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Licenses Lhotka to approve the following licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE Consumer Vending 8800 41 st Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.. R. E. Fritz Company 8511 10th Ave. N. Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. Olive's East Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Hwy : 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Summit Drive FOOD ESTABLISHMENT Ricco's Northbrook Shopping Ctr. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Peikert Sanitation Box 195 Route 2 NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca -Cola Bottling 101 Central Ave. Brooklyn Center Shell 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn 76 Oil 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. John M. Frey Co. 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Midwest Federal 5545 Xerxes Ave. N. Network Systems 6820 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Consumer Vending 8800 41 st Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. R. E. Fritz Company 8511 10th Ave. N. Ault, Inc. 1608 65th Ave. N. Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. N. Saber Dental Studio 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Theisen Vending Company 3804 Nicollet Ave. Bill West 76 Service Station 2000 57th Ave. N. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Hwy. 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Summit Drive PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Apple -A -Day Vending Service 3536 Emerson Ave. S. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Consumer Vending 8800 41 st Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Twin City Vending 1065 E. Hwy. 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Summit Drive RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Alfred & Myrtle Herlitz 2100 Brookview Drive Renewal Raymond & Arlene Breffle 5324,28 Russell Ave. N. Lewis & Vivian Hedlund 5316,20 Russell Ave. N. Robert Nechal 5332,36 Russell Ave. N. Fred & Judy Swenson 5340,44 Russell Ave. N. 9 -19 -77 -18- SWIMMING POOL LICENSE Spa Petite 5615 Xerxes Ave. N. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Reconvene Revenue Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Sharing Hearing Fignar to reconvene the Revenue Sharing hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager referred to 1976 amendments to the Federal Revenue Sharing Act and stated that one of the amendments requires the municipality to hold public hearings on the proposed use of Revenue Sharing funds. He stated that one of the hearings is an administrative hearing to be held by the administrative branch of the local government for the purpose of providing the public, with an opportunity for input into the expenditure of Revenue Sharing funds prior to the proposed budget being submitted to the City Council. He added that the other Federal Revenue Sharing hearing is a legislative hearing where the policymaking body holds hearings regarding the use of Revenue Sharing funds. He explained that the administrative hearing was held on August 29, 1977 by the Director of Finance and himself. He stated that minutes of that meeting had been distributed to the City Council and reviewed those minutes particularly the public comments made at that hearing. He pointed out that he had received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Tillman, 7130 Willow Lane, which suggested that the City utilize Federal Revenue Sharing funds to reduce property taxes on homes in Brooklyn Center. He stated that he has responded to that letter by informing Mr. and Mrs. Tillman that Revenue Sharing funds are not used directly to reduce property taxes for homeowners in Brooklyn Center, but that the use of Revenue Sharing funds indirectly affects a homeowner's property taxes in that the use of Revenue Sharing for cepital expenditures in lieu of property taxes has the affect of not raising property taxes as would be the case if there were no Revenue Snaring funds available. The Acting City Manager stated that Dolores Hastings, 5813,Aldrich Avenue North, had also spoke at the August 29, hearing and suggested that Revenue Sharing funds be used to make money available for home improvements, particularly for the elderly. She had also suggested using these funds for an educational program on how to deal with the problem of battered women. He stated that Maurice Britts., 4819 Lakeview Avenue North, had suggested using Revenue Sharing funds for a program to keep people from losing their homes or to possibly provide rent assistance. He also suggested that the City utilize Revenue Sharing for purchasing more stop signs to be used in various areas of the City; to buy uniforms for the volunteer fire department with the understanding that it would be a one -time expenditure and not an ongoing program; to use Revenue Sharing funds to pay the costs for various police and fire training schools and educational programs; and to -19- 9- 19--77 use these funds to purchase #various park equipment which would be in line with the park priority ranking system prior ° to an intended park improvement bond referendum which would have the effect of reducing the amount of money sought for this bonding. The Acting City Manager reported that Mary Jane Gustafson, 4935 Abbott Avenue North, suggested using Revenue Sharing funds for the aging and had inquired if these funds could bo used for sidewalk construction in 1978. The Acting City Manager then reported that notices regarding this evening's Revenue Sharing hearing had been in the Brooklyn Center Post, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, and also WCCO Radio and TV. He stated that the Director of Finance would give background information relating to the Revenue Sharing program and suggested that following that presentation the meeting be opened to the public to give citizens an opportunity to give their thoughts on potential Revenue Sharing expenditures. The Director of Finance proceeded to review and update the City Council on the original Federal Revenue Sharing Act and the 1975 amendments to it. The Director of Finance stated that it has been the City's policy regarding the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds to use these funds only for capital expenditures or for expenditures that do not create ongoing programs. He explained that this policy was used'in.making recommendations for proposed Revenue Sharing appropriations. He added that approximately $188,000 of the approximate $195,000 Revenue Sharing allocation is proposed for the 1978 budget. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting for purposes of a public Revenue Sharing hearing on proposed uses for Revenue Sharing funds. Mayor Hearing Cohen recognized Dolores Hastings, 5 813 Aldrich Avenue North, who inquired if Revenue Sharing funds could be used to help speed up the park improvement program. The Acting City Manager responded that Revenue Sharing funds can be used to purchase park equipment but that at this time it is not recommended that these funds be used in this manner. He explained that the master development plan for park improve - ment program is just now being put together and a priority list recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission is being looked at in terms. of the overall funding for the program. He explained further that Revenue Sharing funds, in all likelihood, will be used for a portion of the park improvement program aiong with funds obtained through a bonding program and possibly various grants that might be obtained. He stated that it would be best to consider all equipment and expenditures at the same time for funding through these various methods. The Director of Finance pointed out that anytime the City would use more '-han 10% of its allocated Federal Revenue Sharing funds, a public hearing on that matter is required. 9 -19 -77 -20 Mayor Cohen recognized Cecilia Scott, 4104 Lakeside Avenue North, who inquired if Revenue Sharing funds could be used for a pedestrian walkway or a bikeway along T.H. 169 . She explained that it is especially difficult for people walking or bicycling along this roadway and such an installa- tion might well be beneficial. She also questioned whether pedestrian walkways and bikeways might be considered along 69th Avenue North. The Acting City Manager responded that such an expenditure would be eligible for use of Revenue Sharing funds. Mayor Cohen requested that the Acting City Manager review this idea both with MN /DOT and the County regarding the feasibility for constructing these pedestrian walkways or bikeways, and to see if they would participate in any manner. Mayor Cohen inquired if anyone else wished to be heard regarding the proposed uses of Federal Revenue Sharing funds. There being none the public hearing on the proposed uses for Federal Revenue Sharing funds was closed.. Mayor Cohen stated that the Federal Revenue Sharing hearing will continue along with the City Council's budget hearings and if people wish to be heard regarding the use of Revenue Sharing funds during the Council's further review of the City's 1978 budget, they will be given the opportunity. 1978 Budget Hearing The Acting City Manager proceeded with a continued review of departmental appropriations and expenditures The next account reviewed was that of the police department. The . Acting City Manager reported that the 1978 police department budget proposal comprehends the addition of one patrol officer and the creation and funding of a new position called police technician. He explained that the police department had requested two additional patrol officers and the police technician.. He further explained that only one patrol officer. was recommended at this time and that he would recommend that the new city manager evaluate the possibility of an additional patrol officer after he comes on board. He stated that the evaluation of response times in the police depart- ment indicates that there may well be a need for more than one additional patrol officer, but in keeping with the philosophy of this budget he is only recommending one additional officer. He stated that the police technician position would be a nonsworn employee responsible for performing a combination of clerical and technical assignments which would help free existing police supervisory personnel to work in their areas of police expertise. Councilman Britts recollected that the last time patrol officers were added to the present police complement it was said that to have any effect at least two officers should be added. He stated that he is having some difficulty with the recommenda- tion to only add one officer at this time. The Acting City Manager responded that the City would have to add five additional officers to have the effect of adding one person 24 hours a day; seven days a week, 365 days a year. Councilman Kuefler stated that over 20% of the total City budget proposed for 1978 is made up of police department appropriations which does not include vehicle maintenance costs which are appropriated under another account. He inquired as to what requires the City to continue to add more I -21- 9 -19 -77 to this department's budget rather than other department budgets. The Acting City Manager responded that although the rate of serious crimes has decreased in the past year, the amount of calls requesting police department service has increased. He also stated that the police department is maturing in terms of the overall number of years of service for the average police officer. He explained that this fact means that the average officer has more vacation time, sick leave, and other types of benefits which in effect takes that person off the street more frequently and that this fact coupled with the increase in the number of calls for service requires the addition of more personnel. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the police department budget. In response to an inquiry, the Acting City Manager stated that Teamster Local No. 320, which represents all sworn officers below the rank of sergeant, has requested a 12% salary increase plus a cost -of- living raise in addition to a number of increases in benefits. At the request of the Mayor the Director of Finance reviewed various information relating to patrol officer salaries and u fringe benefits, and the effect of the union's demands for increases. He reviewed police pension costs, patrol officers' salaries, vacation leave, holiday leave, sick leave, health, life and long term disability, injury on duty, severance pay, police educational incentive and longevity, and the costs to the City for the addition of a new patrol officer. He also reviewed a salary comparison of police officers with other City employees. Further discussion ensued relative to the police department budget and the information presented by the Director of Finance. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Adjournment of Lhotka to adjourn the 1978 budget hearing and Federal Revenue Budget Hearing Sharing hearing until Wednesday, September 21, 1977 at 7 :30 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Adjournment Fignar to adjourn. the City Council 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 :20 a.m. zlzz ierk Mayor 9 -19 -77 - -22-