HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 04-19 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
APRIL 19, 1976
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
Jensen. Also present were City Manager Donald Poss,
Director of Public Works James Merila , Director of Finance
Paul Holmlund, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant
City Attorney William Clelland, Deputy Chief of Police James
Lindsay, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere,
and Administrative Assistant Ronald Warren.
Invocation The invocation was offered by Pastor Levang of Brookdale
Assembly of God.
Approval of Minutes Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman
4 -5 -76 Fignar to approve the minutes of the April 5, 1976 meeting
as submitted. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen,
Councih Biites, Kuefler, and Fignar. Voting against:
none. The motion passed. Councilman Jensen abstained
as he was not at that meeting.
Presentation of Charter In consideration of persons in attendance Mayor Cohen
Amendment Petition recommended that the City Council first address the pre -
sentation of a Charter amendment petition. Mayor Cohen
then recognized Charter Commission Chairman Henry Dorff,
who delivered the petition to the City Council. Chairman
Dorff reported that the petition was presented to the Charter
Commission on March 12, 1976 and that the Commission at
its April 14, 1976 .meeting moved that the Charter amendment
Petition be forwarded to the City Council without a recom-
mendation. He explained that the Charter Commission has
scheduled public hearings for May 6 and May 13, and also
a May 20 meeting for deliberation purposes, in order to
make a recommendation to the citizens of Brooklyn Center
regarding the Charter amendment proposal.
Action Acknowledging Following a brief discussion there was a motion by
Re;eipt of the Charter Councilman Britts and seconded b Councilman C lma Fignar to Fi
Y g
Amendment Petition and acknowledge receipt eceipt of the Charter amendment petition and
Referring it to the City to refer it to the City Clerk for a verification of signatures
Clerk for Certification and certification at the next City Council meeting.., Voting
in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler,
Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against: none. The motion
Passed unanimously.
Discussion of Ordinance Again in consideration of persons in attendance, Mayor
Initiative Petition Cohen recommended the City Council address the matter
of the ordinance initiative petition at this time, He briefly
reviewed the action taken by the Council at the March 22,
1976 meeting, at which time the ordinance initiative
petition was certified and the matter deferred to the April 19,
1976 meeting for Council discussion following a requested
evaluation by the City Attorney of the ordinance petition,
Mayor Cohen stated that the procedure would not be a public
hearing on the matter,
-1- 4 -19 -76
Mayor Cohen recognized the City Attorney who proceeded
with a review of his memo submitted to the City Council
relating to the validity of the initiative petition and
ordinance change and the petition for the Charter amend-
ment.
The City Attorney discussed the power cf appointment of
the Fire Chief and members of the Fire Department con-
tained in the proposed ordinance, Charter amendment and
related Fire Department bylaws. He stated that although
the Charter amendment provides that the Fire Chief shall
be appointed by the City Council upon recommendation of
the Fire Department, a conflict exists in that the proposed
ordinance effectively provides that neither the City Manager,
the City Council nor any other group will have power of
appointment or removal over any member of the Fire Depart-
ment except that the City Council may remove the Fire Chief
during the first 60 days of his term for good cause. Further,
the choice of the Fire Chief would be limited to one candidate
selected by the Fire Department. He further stated that
removal for good cause would require a showing of a major
dereliction of duty or malfeasance in office that apparently
would have to occur within the first 60 days of office. He
emphasized that good cause for dismissal is a misrepre-
sentation of the proposition that the power of appointment
would be vested in the City Council. He explained that
the matter is further complicated when the Fire Department
bylaws are considered, because a provision of those bylaws
states that the Fire Chief can be removed for good cause
only if confirmed by a 2/3 vote of the volunteer Fire Depart-
ment. He stated that the effect of these inconsistencies is
that the appointment authority is not vested in the City
Council.
The City Attorney proceeded to report that there is a question
as to whether or not the provisions of the proposals constitute
an unlawful delegation of authority to the Fire Department.
He explained that the Minnesota Constitution provides that
a city, when authorized by law, may adopt a Home Rule
Charter which is consistent with the Constitution and the laws
enacted by the Legislature. He stated that the State Legis-
lature has delegated to City Councils the power to establish
Fire Departments and to, among other things, appoint their
members and officers. He explained that in an Optional
Plan B form of government, which was the model reflected
by our Charter, the power of appointment may be legally
delegated to the City Manager. He further explained that
the Charter must be consistent with the law and that there
must be a form of control over the Fire Department either by
the City Council or the City Manager. He stated that in an
Optional Plan B government that authority is in the City
Manager.
The City Attorney stated that the proposed ordinance, under
the proposed Charter amendment, alters or is inconsistent
with the general laws governing Fire Department administra-
tion and is, therefore, an unconstitutional delegation of
legislative power in that: first, the power to appoint members
of the Fire Department is vested solely in the Fire Chief,
whose appointment is in turn effectively vested in the Fire
Department members; and second, that neither the City
Council nor the City Manager nor other agents appointed or
effectively controlled by the City Council, can appoint, or
effectively control the appointment of the Fire Chief or any
member of the Fire Department.
4-19-76 -2-
The City Attorney stated that there are other conflicts,
ambiguities or inconsistencies in the proposed Charter and
ordinance amendments that must be addressed to, some of
which may be construed as "housekeeping functions" but,
nevertheless, must reflect the proposed changes He ex-
plained that the proposed amendments are: inconsistent
with Section 2.01 of the City Charter which establishes the
Council /Manager form of government and would require a
change to indicate that the administrative affairs of the Fire
Department will be controlled by the City Council, the Fire
Chief and Fire Department members; inconsistent with
Section 2.09 of the City Charter which forbids Council
interference with administration; inconsistent with Section
2.02 of the City Charter which abolishes separate boards
and commissions; inconsistent with Section 7.01 of the
City Charter which requires that the City Council exercise
full authority over the financial affairs of the City while
Section 5.107 of the proposed ordinance requires payment
of compensation to Fire Department members in accordance
with a schedule that cannot be altered without the consent
of the Fire Department; and inconsistent with Section 5.01
of the City Charter which prohibits the use of the initiative
process for ordinances which appropriate money or authorize
the levy of tares. In addition, the City Attorney stated
that the proposed ordinance adopts the Fire Department
bylaws 'Dy iefeience and that a portion of those bylaws
require voting within the Fire Department by secret ballot
which may very well be a violation of the Minnesota Open
Meeting Law.
Mayor Cohen next recognized Assistant City Attorney
William Clel.land who proceeded to review a memorandum
submitted to the City Council regarding the proposed
ordnance and Equal Employment Opportunity. He stated
that Title VII of Federal law relating to Equal Employment
Opportunity and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Chapter
363 both apply to the City of Brooklyn Center as an employer
and the Brooklyn Center Fire Department members as em-
ployees. He explained that among other things the laws
define discrimination, prohibit discriminatory employment
practices and forbid a system of employment which un-
reasonably excludes persons seeking employment.
Mr. Clelland stated that the proposed ordinance vests
selection of the membership of the Fire Department almost
entirely in the person of the Fire Chief. He further explained
that the proposed ; ordinance promotion procedures consist
of election by secret ballot based upon vague and poorly
defined criteria, vesting promotion within the discretion of
the Fire Department membership. In addition the proposed
ordinance prohibits full -time employees of the City of
Brooklyn Center from becoming Fire Chief. He stated that
such a closed and restrictive scheme of hiring and prcmo-
tion arguably constitutes a system of employment unreason-
ably excluding persons seeking employment which would be
a violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 363.03. He
further stated that the proposed system of hiring and pro -
motion, based upon personal choice, lacking objective,
concrete and impartial criteria, arguably constitutes unlawful
employment practices particularly with regard to the exclu-
sion of full -time employees of the City of Brooklyn Center
from becoming a Fire Chief. He stated that he cannot com-
prehend the proposed ordinance functioning without violating
the Minnesota Human Rights Act or Title VII of Federal law.
-3- 4 -19 -76
He next proceeded to briefly review the effect discriminatory
employment practices can have on a city in terms of Federal
Revenue Sharing. He stated if a recipient government of
Federally shared funds, such as the City of Brooklyn Center,
is found to violate any discrimination provisions, that
recipient government is subject to a forfeiture of shared
Federal Revenue funds, faces the loss of future entitlement
to shared Federal Revenue funds and can be required to repay
such shared funds already disbursed to it. He reviewed a
case in 1973 involving a complaint against the volunteer
Fire Department of Dover, Delaware because of discriminatory
i
admission procedures that resulted in the deletion of the
discriminator practices r°
Y p prior to the authorisation of a
$600,000 Revenue Sharing Grant, He stated that although
the bylaws of the Dover volunteer Fire Department differ
somewhat from the proposed bylaws of the Brooklyn Center
volunteer Fire Department, they have the same common
feature of a popular vote of the membership for office holding.
He stated that the proposed Fire Department bylaws clearly
compromise the Fire Department and the City's rights to
enjoy Federally shared funds and could result in a loss of
those funds, future entitlements and subject the City to the
possibility of repayment of funds.
A brief discussion ensued relative to the validation of
selection and promotion criteria. Councilman Britts stated
that he was concerned about the possible discriminatory
aspects of the proposed ordinance and bylaws, but was also
concerned about discriminatory aspects regarding all depart-
ments of the City. The City Manager responded that the
City is required to annually submit a report to the EEOC
showing that an overt effort was made to hire minorities and
protected groups. He briefly reviewed administrative affirma-
tive action policy and efforts made and results achieved in
the Police Department.
Councilman Britts requested that the Council be informed in
the reasonable future regarding equal employment practices
for all City departments.
The City Attorney next proceeded to review aspects relating
to the validity of the initiative process. He stated that while
it is a necessity to keep the process simple and easily
accessible, it is also the responsibility of the City Council
to protect the initiative process from abuse. The City Attorney
reviewed Minnesota case law involving the initiative process,
stating that the City Council has a duty to protect the integrity
of the process by removing from the petition signatures obtained
through misrepresentation, false statements, intimidation,
emotional appeals, and other factors not related to the sub-
stance of the initiative question provided they do so in good
faith and without an intention to defeat the purpose of the
initiative process.
The City Attorney reported that the validity of the process used
to obtain petition signatures is questionable, due to a piece
of campaign literature distributed to solicit funds and support
for the volunteer Fire Department. He further reported that
the literature in question can arguably be considered a mis-
representation of the facts in that, among other charges, it
falsely intimates that the City has misused public funds;
falsely intimates that the question for decision is whether the
City should have a full -time Fire Department; and falsely
intimates that the question for decision is whether the voters
support the Volunteer Fire Chief and Volunteer Fire Department,
4 -19 -76 -4-
He proceeded to list some of the other misrepresentations
contained in the literature and pointed out that a summary
of the proposed ordinance circulated with the petition
falsely states that the City Council will assume respon-
sibility for the supervision of the Fire Department, whereas
the ordinance makes no provision for the supervision by
the City Council or the City Manager.
The City Attorney concluded his remarks by recommending
that the City Council refer the petition to the courtroom to
clarify the apparent contradictory aspects of the proposed
charter amendments and ordinance and for a declaratory
judgment as to the validity of the petitions before the matter
is placed on the ballot or passed by the City Council.
Councilman Fignar questioned whether or not the language
of the proposals could be modified so that there be no legal
problems with the charter amendments and ordinance. The
City Attorney - esponded that the present controversy has
been going on for some time and that the substantive legal
issues requiring more than semantic modification would
now seem to be resolvable only by the courts. A lengthy
discussion ensued relative to the timetable for such an
action and the ramifications of an invalid or an uncon-
stitutional law being adopted by vote of the people. The
City Attorney stated that an ordinance, even if it is adopted
by vote of the people, is not a valid law if it is contrary
to the State Constitution or State law.
Councilman Fignar stated that enough contradictions and
inconsistencies have been raised regarding the validity
of the petitions that the matter has become an issue that
only the courts can decide.
Councilman Jensen stated that as an elected body the
Council must assure that the proposals are valid and legal.
He further stated that in the present form it appears that
the validity and legality of the proposals are questionable,
and that he supports seeking a court clarification with the
hope that it can be accomplished as quickly as possible.
Councilman Britts concurred and stated that he sees the
possibility of problems similarly existing in the proposed
Charter amendment with .similar ramifications.
Councilman Kuefler commented that the Council has three
apparent choices: refer the questions to the court; not
adopt the proposed ordinance and let it g o to a vote; or
negotiate changes in the proposals that will take an
exceedingly long time to accomplish if p ossible at all.
He stated that he supports referring the matter to the courts.
Mayor Cohen, stated that the Council is not compelled to
submit for a vote an unconstitutional or invalid proposal.
He further stated that a vote of the people cannot validate
an otherwise illegal or invalid law, therefore, he supports
referring the proposals to the courts for clarification.
Councilman Britts inquired if it were possible to open the
meeting to hear a spokesman for the ,petitions on this issue.
Mayor Cohen stated that the deliberation was declared not
to be a public hearing at the outset of the meeting, but
that he would abide with the wishes of the Council. A
brief discussion ensued relative to opening the meeting for
comments and to limiting the time of the presentations.
-5- 4 -19 -76
Following the discussion there was a motion by
Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Fignar to
hear a representative from the Fire Department and from
the citizens committee formed to study the issue, but to
limit the time of the presentation to a total of ten minutes.
Voting in favor were- Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts,
Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against: none. The
motion Passed unanimously.
The City Council recessed at 9:40 p.m. and resumed at Recess
10:00 p.m.
Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. George Heenan, a member of
the Brooklyn Center Fire Department and also a member of
the committee that sponsored the petitions. He stated that
referring the matter to the courts for clarification is in-
appropriate and that this action assumes that the petitioners
would not be susceptible to changes. He requested that
copies of the City Attorney's memo be made available to the
public and contended that it contained errors of fact. He
asserted that the attorney for the petitioners could work out
a solution to many of the alleged problems.
Mayor Cohen next recognized Mr. Edwin Theisen, Chairman
of the Citizens Committee studying the Fire Department
issue. He stated .that the citizens group has not yet com-
pleted its deliberations nor taken a position on the matter.
He explained that they have reviewed over 1 000 pages of
information, have taken testimony and will complete and
present their report and recommendations in the near future.
He stated that it would be inappropriate for him to make any
further comment on the matter at this time.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Mayor Action Referring
Cohen and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to approve the the Ordinance
City Attorney's recommendation to seek court clarifications Initiative Petition
of the problems identified in his memorandum regarding the to the Court
petitions. Following the motion and the second a brief
discussion ensued relative to the time factor. The City
Attorney stated he would try to have the matter resolved in
60 to 90 days but could not provide absolute assurance
since court calendars were not controlled by him. He stated
that the action in effect would ask the court to stop the clock,
so to speak, on the Charter amendment and ordinance petition
procedures until a determination is made. Following further
discussion a vote on the motion was taken. Voting in favor
were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar,
and Jensen. Voting against. none. The motion passed
unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Declaration of
Jensen to declare as surplus property two obsolete IBM Surplus Property
typewriters, one obsolete Odhner Adder, two obsolete ping
gong tables, all to be disposed of at the June 12, 1976
City auction and one antenna tower to be disposed of in the
best interest of the City. Voting in favor were. Mayor Cohen,
Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced the next item of business, that Acknowledging
of acknowledging receipt of a claim filed against the City. Claim
He stated that the claim is for a loss allegedly incurred by
the claimants in an amount of $6,000 as a result of a situation
involving the apprehension of a burglary suspect and a sub-
sequent car impoundment by the Police Department. He
4-19-76 -6-
recommended that the City Council officially acknowledge
receipt of the claim and refer it to the City's insurance
carrier for disposition.
Following a brief discussion there was a motion by
Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to
acknowledge receipt of the claim and refer it to the City's
insurance carrier. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen,
Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting
against- none. The motion passed unanimously.
Establish Board of The City Manager introduced the next item of business on
Equalization Meeting the agenda, that of establishing a meeting date for the City
Council to sit as a Board of Equalization to review current
property valuations He stated that this is an annual
obligation of the City Council that must be complied with
by June 10. He recommended that Tuesday, June 8, 1976,
at 7030 p.m. be established as a date and time for the
Board of Equalization meeting. A brief discussion ensued
relative to the meeting date. Mayor Cohen stated that he
would be out of town on that date and requested that he be
excused. Following the discussion there was a motion by
Councilman Jensen and seconded by Councilman Kuefler
to establish Tuesday, June 8, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. as the
meeting date and time for the Board of Equalization to be
held at the City Council Chambers. Voting in favor were:
Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and
Jensen. Voting against: none. The motion passed unani-
mously.
RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following resolution
NO. 76 -58 and moved its adoption:.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRE-
CIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR.
LEON KNIGHT
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
Robert Jensen; 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. 76 -59 and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR USED PNEUMATIC
TIRED ROLLER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was
duly seconded by member Robert Jensen, and upon vote
being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar,
and Robert Jensen; and the following voted against the
same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION Member Robert Jensen introduced the following resolution
NO. 76 -60 and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TENNIS
COURTS LIGHTING AGREEMENT WITH BROOKLYN CENTER
SCHOOL DISTRICT
-7- 4 -19 -76
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 Robert Jensen, and the following voted against the
same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
Member Bill Fignar introduced the following ordinance and ORDINANCE
moved its adoption- NO. 76-3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY
ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO REZONING CERTAIN R-5
PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section I . Section 35-1140 of the City Ordinances is
hereby amended in part by the deletion of the following:
[That part of Lots 9 and 10, Auditor's Subdivision No.
25, described as follows. Commencing at a point in
the east line of Lot 10, lying in the centerline of
County Road distant 967.6 feet northerly along said
east line of Lot 10 from the southeast comer thereof:
thence southeasterly along said centerline 282 feet;
thence west 506 feet parallel with the south line of
Lot 10; thence northeasterly in a straight line a dis-
tance of 470 feet to the point of beginning; except
road and highway.]
Section 2. Section 35-1170 of the City Ordinances is
hereby amended in part by the addition of the following:
That part of Lots 9 and 10, Au Subdivision No.
25, described as follows: Commencing at a point in
the east line of Lot 10 lying in the centerline of
County Road distant 967.6 feet northerly along said
east line of Lot 10 from the southeast corner thereof;
thence southeasterly
thence west S06 feet parallel with the sough line of
Lot 10; thence northeasterly i a straight line a dis-
tance of 470 feet to the point of beginning; except
road and highway.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after
adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal
publication.
Adopted this 19th day of April, 1976.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance
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 Robert Jensen; 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, Side Yard Setbacks
that of a recommended ordinance intended to address the for Comer Lots
matter of yard setbacks for corner lots in those areas of
the City that have been generally developed in compliance
with an old 15 foot setback standard. He stated that the
4-19-76 -8-
proposal had been favorably reviewed by the Planning
Commission at its April 15, 1976 meeting. The Director
of Planning and Inspection reviewed a map showing the
location of the corner lots that could potentially make
use of the ordinance revision.
Ordinance First Following a brief discussion there was a motion by
Reading Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Jensen to
offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 35
of the City Ordinances relative to side corner yard set-
backs. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen
Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Rear Yard The City Manager introduced the next item of business,
Setbacks that of a recommended ordinance that addresses the matter
of rear yard setback requirements in residential districts.
He stated that a 40 foot rear yard setback requirement has
been in the oi since 1940 and that recent variance
requests resulted in the proposed ordinance which would
establish the rear yard setback requirement at 25 feet.
He explained that interior residential lots would also be
required to have a minimum rear yard area that is at least
30% of the total lot area. He stated that the Planning
Commission had favorably reviewed the ordinance amend-
ment at its Aprii 15, 1976 meeting.
Ordinance First Following a brief discussion there was a motion by
Reading Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Fignar
to offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter
35 of the City Ordinances relative to rear yard setbacks.
Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts,
Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
Substandard The City Manager introduced the next item of business,
Residential Lots that of a recommended ordinance intended to address the
matter of numerous substandard width lots which exist
in the older parts of the City. He stated that the ordinance
amendment would in effect grandfather all substandard lots
or Parcels whl' were of legal record on June 1, 1976,
provided the lots are not less than 40 feet in width and
have a total area of not less than 5,000 square feet. He
further stated that the Planning Commission had favorably
reviewed this proposal at its April 15, 1976 meeting.
Councilman Jensen inquired if the June I cutoff date would
result in a scramble to create substandard lots in order to
meet this requirement. Discussion ensued relative to the
date for grandfathering substandard lots. It was the con-
sensus of the Council to change the date provided in the
ordinance for grandfathering substandard lots to January 1
1976.
Mayor Cohen left the table at 11:05 p.m. and returned at
11:09 P.M.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed various
City maps showing the location of substandard parcels
and noted the concentration of such parcels in the south-
east area of the City.
-9- 4-19-76
Following further discussion there was a motion by Ordinance First
Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Jensen to Reading
offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 35
of the City Ordinances relative to substandard lots and
parcels. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Council-
men Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. James Nielsen, attorney Planning Commission
for David Faddler, who had submitted Planning Commission Application No. 76008
Application No. 76008. Mr. Nielsen stated that the
Council, at its February 23, 1976 meeting, had tabled
Planning Commission Application No. 76008 for sixty days.
He further stated that developments have occurred such that
Mr. Faddler also desires a variance from the ordinance
setback requirements for the substandard lot in question.
Mr. Nielsen requested the Council to deliberate this even-
ing on the matter because their tabling action will expire
prior to the next scheduled Council meeting. Mayor Cohen
stated that deliberation on this matter was not scheduled
for this evening's meeting and recommended that the
application be re-tabled to the May 3 City Council meeting.
Motion by Councilman Jensen and seconded by Councilman Action Tabling
Fignar to table Planning Commission Application No. 76008 Planning Commission
until the May 3, 1976 City Council meeting. Voting in Application No. 76008
favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler,
Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against- none. The motion
passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Consumption of
that of a report relative to the consumption of alcoholic Alcoholic Beverages
beverages in City parks and the related problems. He in Parks
stated that the consumption of alcoholic beverages in City
parks had not created significant problems until approxi-
mately three years ago, and subsequently, in response to
neighborhood problems the consumption of alcoholic
beverages was temporarily banned at Twin Lake Beach Park
by the City Council. Since that time, he reported, the
Police Department has experienced numerous alcohol and
drug-related problems at River Ridge Park. He briefly
reviewed the nature of the problems experienced at River
Ridge Park and pointed out that these problems have since
spread to neighborhood parks such as Grandview Park and
Garden City Park.
The City Manager explained that research indicates that
most neighboring communities do not permit consumption of
alcoholic beverages in City Parks and that Brooklyn Center
has become known as an area where younger people can
hold beer busts. He further explained that the problems
involved include consumption by minors, littering problems,
vandalism of City property and cases of destruction to
private property.
The City Manager recommended that the City Council con-
sider adopting an ordinance banning the possession and
consumption of alcoholic beverages in all City parks. He
stated that consideration has been given to allowing the
consumption of alcohol in the parks by some sort of permit
system, but that this problem will need further review and
that such action is not recommended at this time.
4-19-76 -10-
A discussion ensued relative to the recommendation, a
system of permits, and the possibility of enacting an
emergency ordinance. Mayor Cohen recognized Deputy
Chief of Police James Lindsay who reviewed the police
problems relative to the consumption of alcohol in the
parks. He stated that police presently are limited as to
what they can do and usually are confronted with the prob-
lem once it ha�- become out of hand.
Councilman Kuefler suggested that the Park and Recreation
Commission have an opportunity to review the matter and
make comments to the Council. Mayor Cohen stated that
the problem of consumption of alcoholic beverages in the
parks is about to get out of hand and has created a number
of other problems that are related to it. He further stated
that it may be desirable to work out a system of permits
but that it is important to first address the problems by
totally banning the use of alcohol in the parks.
Action Directing Following further discussion there was a motion by
the ;Preparation Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to
of an Ordinance direct the Clt Manager to prepare the necessary ordinance
Banning the Use revisions that would ban the consumption and use of
of Alcoholic alcoholic beverages in City parks and to refer the proposed
Bev in ban to the Park and Recreation Commission for review and
City Parks comment. voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen
Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Licenses Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman
Fignar to approve the following licenses:
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Dean's Vending P.O. Box 380
Brockdale Motel 6500 Lyndale Ave. N.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brookl,
yr Center High School
Futl,ire Horrie-makers of
America 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center National
Little League 5 918 Upton Ave. N.
Don Dahlberg 7548 Irvin Ave. S.
Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N.
HOUSE MOVER'S LICENSE
Prodger Houslrl Moving 2 Cleveland Ave.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Air Comfort Co. , Inc. 3300 Gorha m Ave.
Cronstrom° s Htg. & Air
Conditioning 4410 Excelsior Blvd.
Don's Air Conditioning
& Htg. 4017 Central Ave. N a E.
Egan & Sons 7100 Medicine Lake Rd.
Frank's Htg. & Sheet
Metal Co. 1827 N.E. California St.
Gas Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave '. S
Harris Mechanical 2300 Territorial Rd.
Ideal Htg. & Air
Conditioning, Inc. 3116 Fremont Ave. N.
Minnesota Gar, Co. 733 Marquette Ave.
Richmond & Sons 5182 W. Broadway
George Sedgwick Htg. 1001 Xenia Ave. S.
4-19-76
Standard Htg. Co. 410 West Lake St.
Suburban Air Conditioning 8419 Center Drive
Thompson Air Conditioning 5115 Hanson Court
Fred Vogt & Co. 3260 Gorham Ave.
Ray Welter Htgo 4637 Chicago Ave.
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Cat Pumps Corp. 1600 Freeway Blvd,
Dean's Vending P.O. Box 380
Brookdale Motel 6.500 Lyndale Ave. N.
Viking Pioneer 5200 West 74th St.
Interstate Service 6548 Lyndal.e Ave. N.
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Dean's Vending P.O. Box 380
Brookdale Motel 6500 Lyndale Ave. N.
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Renewal:
Richard A. Thun 3614 -16 50th Ave. No
Harold Siegel Brookdale 10
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
Nordquist Sign Co. , Inc. 312 W. Lake Street
Signcrafters Outdoor
Display, Inc. No. 13 - 77 Way N.E.
SPECIAL FOOD HAND_ LER'S LICENSE
LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr.
TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Police
Association 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy,
Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts,
Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against- none.
The motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Jensen announced that he would be out of town Request to be
for the May 3, 1976 City Council meeting and requested Excused
to be excused. Councilman Britts announced that he would
be out of town for the May 17 City Council meeting.
Councilman Kuefler stated that he had also requested to be
excused from the May 17 City Council meeting. A brief
discussion ensued relative to the May meeting schedule.
Following the discussion there was a motion by Councilman Rescheduling
Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to reschedule Council Meeting
the May 17, 1976 City Council meeting to May 24, 1976.
Voting in favor were- Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts,
Kuefler Fignar, and Jensen. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Councilman Jensen and seconded by Councilman Adjournment
Kuefler to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Mayor
Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Jensen.
Voting against: none, The motion passed unanimously.
The City Council adjourned at 11 :5 2 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
4 -19 -76 -12-