HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 04-25 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
APRIL 25, 1988
7 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open n F
orum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be
routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Approval of Minutes:
*a. April 11, 1988 - Regular Session
7. Proclamation:
*a. Declaring April 10 -23, 1988, as the Kickoff of
Registration of Public Library Service
*b. Declaring May 1 -7 1988 , as Minnesota Cities Week
8. Resolutions:
a. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1987 -M
(Rehabilitation of Well Houses No. 5 and 6, Improvement
Project No. 1987 -20)
b. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1986 -C
(Construction of Centerbrook Golf Course, Improvement
Project No. 1985 -23)
*c. Denying Planning Commission Application No. 88001
Submitted by Metropolitan Transit Commission
9. Ordinance: (7:30 p.m.)
a. Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding
the Issuance of Nonintoxicating Liquor Licenses for
Municipal Facilities and Events
-This item was first read on March 28 1988, published
in the City's official newspaper on April 7, 1988, and
is offered this evening for a second reading.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 25, 1988
10. Planning Commission Items: 7:45 .m.
� P )
a. Planning Commission Application No. 88002 submitted by
Coldwell Banker requesting a variance from Section 35-
704 of the zoning ordinance to allow more than 10% of
the gross floor area of Humboldt Square shopping center
to be devoted to restaurant use
-This item was recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission at its April 14, 1988, meeting. However, an
ordinance amendment was recommended for this item.
1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances Regarding Restaurant Space Allowed in
Shopping Centers
b. Planning Commission Application No. 88003 submitted by
Equitec Institutional Fund III requesting an appeal
from a determination by the zoning official that day-
care centers are not a permitted or special use in the
I -1 zoning district. The appellant seeks an ordinance
amendment.
-This item was recommended for denial by the Planning
Commission at its April 14, 1988, meeting. They also
did not recommend an ordinance amendment at this time.
11. Discussion Items:
a. House Doctor and Home Energy Checkup Programs
b. Police Department Staffing
C. Council Review of 1989 Budget Process
d. Discussion of Criteria for Meeting Refuse and Recycling
Mandates
12. Liquor License for Yen Ching Restaurant
*13. Licenses
14. Adjournment
/ (�
CORRECTION
Councilmember Theis stated this has been a long, drawn out process for this
application, but a decision must be made. He stated he would like to move
approval of the resolution rescinding approval of a special use permit for the
Bill Kelly House residential treatment facility. He noted this resolution would
place the application under the current moratorium. Councilmember Hawes stated
he would second this motion.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City Attorney if, under any of the three
options, does the decision have to be based upon new information. The City
Attorney stated the decision can be based upon all information that was
considered throughout the process. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of
Councilmember Theis upon what basis his motion was made. Councilmember Theis
stated he does not feel the Bill Kelly House has proved the facility will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood or the property values of the homes in the area.
Councilmember Lhotka stated he agrees with Councilmember Theis in that this
process has gone on for a long time, and a decision must be made. He noted
after reviewing all items he believes the "new" evidence had actually been
considered in the beginning. He stated there have been a number of studies
cited, and all except one come to the same conclusion. He stated he is not
convinced that he can change his vote.
Councilmember Hawes stated he agrees with Councilmember Theis and does not
believe this facility will enhance the neighborhood. He stated he feels the
City Council must represent the people of Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Theis stated he feels the time period stated by the moratorium
will give the City time to gather information and reevaluate this application.
He noted the time will be well spent evaluating the current ordinance structure
and having studies completed.
Councilmember Lhotka reminded the Councilmembers of the time and deliberation
taken before the initial approval of this permit. He stated he would like every
Councilmember to take their responsibility very seriously regarding this matter.
Councilmember Scott stated she has had several concerns regarding this proposed
facility and noted the applicant has not convinced her the use will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood. She added she feels the facility will not meet
the needs of the mentally ill or the neighborhood.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -51
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RESCINDING THE
APPROVAL
OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE BILL KELLY
HOUSE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed with Councilmember Lhotka opposed.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City
Council adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
3 -28 -88 -7-
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 11, 1988
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes.
Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy
Knapp, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie
LeFevere, Personnel Coordinator Geralyn Barone, and Administrative Aid Patti
Page.
Mayor Nyquist noted Councilmember Theis would be late for this evening's
meeting.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Councilmember Lhotka.
Mayor Nyquist noted members of Boy Scout pack #403, from Cross of Glory Church,
were present this evening to observe the City Council meeting. The pack leader
stated the boys were working on their citizen activity badge and attending a
meeting, or meeting a City official is one of the requirements of the badge.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the open
forum session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished
to address the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda
items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmembers requested any items removed from
the consent agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested item 7, 9c, and 9g be
removed, and Councilmember Hawes requested item 9b be removed from the consent
agenda.
PROCLAMATION
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following proclamation and moved its adoption:
PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 17 -23, 1988, AS VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing proclamation was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes
and the motion passed unanimously.
4 -11 -88 -1-
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -52
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPOINTING GERALD SPLINTER AS ALTERNATE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -53
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes
to approve the following list of licenses:
CIGARETTE
Best Products Company, Inc. 5925 Earle Brown Dr.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Bakers Square Restaurant 5601 Xerxes Ave. N.
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Mobil 6849 Brooklyn Blvd.
Carmel Corn 1333 Brookdale Center
Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Center
Donut Delight 6838 Humboldt Ave. N.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Earle Brown Commons 6100 Summit Drive
Food Express 1131 Brookdale Mall
Kids' Time Out 5611 Xerxes Ave. N.
The Learning Tree 6020 Earle Brown Dr.
Maranatha Conservative Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
Nature Food Centre 6068 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Nutrition World 1271 Brookdale Center
Scoreboard Pizza 6816 Humboldt Ave. N.
Subs Etc. 6048 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Taco Bell Brookdale Center
U.A. Communications 5800 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Yen Ching Restaurant 5900 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center Lioness 5312 N. Lilac Drive
Park Center Parents 6400 Sycamore Lane N.
4 -11 -88 -2-
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.
Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Aer, Inc. Box 1146
All Season Comfort, Inc. 55 Mound Street
Allan Mechanical, Inc. 6020 Culligan Way
C.O. Carlson Air Cond. Co. 1203 Bryant Ave. N.
Centraire, Inc. 7402 Washington Ave. S.
Construction Mechanical Services 1307 Sylvan Street
Doody Mechanical, Inc. 520 Front Avenue
Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road
Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 5000 North Co. Road 18
Igloo Heating and Air Cond. 11440 Lakeland Dr. N.
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors 7340 Washington Ave. S.
Northwest Heating & Air Cond. 9964 Hemlock Way
Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Ave. S.
Pride Mechanical, Inc. 3025 NE Randolph St.
R & S Heating & Air Cond. 21357 Hemlock Ave.
Realistic Heating & Cooling Inc. 9077 Van Buren St. NE
Royalton Heating & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Ave. N.
T.G.S. Mechanical Inc. 50 Choctaw Circle
United Heating & Air Cond, 7909 30th Ave. N.
Ray Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Ave.
SIGN HANGER
Ace Sign Company 1991 N. Broadway
SWIMMING POOL
Brookdale Ten Apartments 3305 -3433 53rd Ave. N.
Chippewa Park Apartments 6507 Camden Ave. N.
Columbus Village Apartments 507 70th Ave. N.
Four Court Apartments 2836 Northway Dr.
Garden City Court Apartments 3407 65th Ave. N.
North Lyn Apartments 6511 Humboldt Ave. N.
Northbrook'Apartments 1302 69th Ave. N.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 28 1988 - REGULAR SESSION
Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to make a correction on page seven,
the second paragraph, in the second to the last sentence. He stated the
sentence should read "he stated there have been a number of studies cited, and
all except one come to the same conclusion."
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to approve the minutes of the March 28, 1988, City Council meeting as amended.
The motion passed unanimously.
4 -11 -88 -3-
RESOLUTIONS
The City Manager presented a resolution establishing policies and procedures for
initiation and financing of water main replacements. He noted a public
information meeting regarding the water quality improvements was conducted by
City staff on March 23, 1988. He noted staff recommends the City Council adopt
formal policies and procedures regarding the initiation and financing of water
main replacements. He added a petition must be presented to the City Council
before the improvements will take place. Mayor Nyquist inquired if the
petitions would be for each individual street or for the entire area. The City
Manager stated the petitions could be done for each individual street, but there
is no guarantee that the streets which are not replaced would not affect the
replaced lines. Mayor Nyquist inquired how the cost of a smaller project would
be distributed. The Director of Public Works stated generally the costs of a
project are ro ortional to
th
P P e size of the project. The Director of Public
Works briefly reviewed the presentation which was given to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Theis entered the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
The Director of Public Works noted the red water problem is not creating a
health or safety hazard. He went on to review the current alternatives open to
the City those being to continue the current operations and maintenance
procedures, lining of the existing pipes, or the water main replacement program.
He noted staff is not comfortable recommending any of the techniques used for
lining the existing pipes. He added the cost of lining the existing pipes would
run any where from 50% to over 100% of the cost of replacing the lines. The
Director of Public Works noted the water main replacement project must be
initiated by a petition of property owners. He added under State law, the
Council can order the project following a public hearing. He explained the City
Council can order the project by a simple majority vote if the petition is
signed by more than 35% of affected property owners and by a 4/5 vote of the
City Council if the petition is signed by 35% or less of the affected property
owners. He went on to review the proposed special assessment levy and the term
of the special assessment. The Director of Public Works concluded by briefly
reviewing the possible schedule which would allow for completion of the project
by the end of October 1988. He explained this would be a very tight schedule,
but the project could be constructed along this time frame.
Mayor Nyquist stated he would like to defer action on this resolution until
later in the meeting so that the 7:15 p.m. presentation on the agenda could be
taken care of.
JOSLYN POLE YARD INTERIM POLLUTION CONTROL
The City Manager stated Mr. Frank Wallner from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MCPA) is present this evening to discuss the soil contamination problem
at the Joslyn pole yard. Mr. Wallner stated there are also two people from Barr
Engineering, which is representing Joslyn, present this evening. Mr. Wallner
went on to review the past history of the Joslyn pole yard noting it had been a
wood treating plant for a number of years. He stated in 1985 the MPCA issued a
request for a study of the site and a feasibility study for cleanup of the area.
He noted originally a slurry wall had been proposed and approved for the
contaminated area. However, it was discovered there was a problem with the
amount of clay in the area. He stated a new plan has been submitted to the
4 -11 -88 _4_
MPCA, and it is believed this is a much better system. He explained the new
plan would consist of installing four ground water pump out wells around the
contaminated soils. He stated this would revent the migration of contaminated
round p g ted
g water to other areas. He stated
the ground water would be tested and
decontaminated, if necessary, and then released into the sewer system. He added
Y
Y
that agreements have not been worked out yet with the City or the Shingle Creek
Watershed Management Association.
Mr. Wallner stated the MPCA is also concerned with the contaminated soil in the
area. He stated Joslyn is working on preliminary plans for the contaminated
soil.
Councilmember Scott inquired of Mr. Wallner who would monitor the water before
it is dumped into the City's sanitary sewer lines. Mr. Wallner stated there
would be monthly monitoring by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired how long this area would have to be pumped. A
representative from Barr Engineering stated the pumping could last 20 years or
longer. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if the contaminated soils would be
removed. A representative from Barr Engineering stated some of the soils could
be removed, but at this time they are just developing a plan for cleanup of the
contaminated soils. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what is done with the
contaminates that are taken out of the water. Mr. Wallner stated a carbon block
is used for the purification of the water, and this would have to be disposed of
properly.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 Regarding Filing for
Municipal Office. He noted this ordinance was first read on March 14, 1988,
published in the City's official newspaper on March 24, 1988, and is offered
this evening for a second reading.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An
Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 Regarding Filing for Municipal Office and inquired
if there was anyone present who wished to speak. There being none, he
entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 Regarding Filing
for Municipal Office. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 88 -06
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 29 REGARDING FILING FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by
member Celia
Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 Relating to Parks
and Recreation. He noted this amendment would cover certain housekeeping
changes within the ordinance and changes related to the curfew and use of
portable grills in parks. He added the ordinance is offered this evening for a
4 -11 -88 -5-
first reading. Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the item relating to glass
beverage containers. The Personnel Coordinator stated under the current
ordinance the Director of Park and Recreation can authorize the use of glass
containers within a park. She noted under this ordinance amendment it would be
changed to allow for no exceptions. Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the
change for posting of signs and handbills within parks. The City Attorney
stated this item was being reviewed by his office before the second reading of
the ordinance. There was a brief discussion regarding other areas of the
ordinance amendment and concerns of the Councilmembers.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to table the first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 Relating to Parks
and Recreation until a report can be made on the questions raised by
Councilmembers. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR INITIATION AND FINANCING OF
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS
Mayor Nyquist noted the resolution before the Council this evening is to
establish policies and procedures for initiating water main replacements. He
added the policy and procedures will not be utilized unless a petition is
received.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Richard Mechtel, 6337 Quail Avenue North, who
stated he and his neighbors are concerned that a 4/5 vote by the Council can
approve this project even if the neighborhood is against it. He added he feels
all options have not been thoroughly investigated. Mr. Mechtel went on to
explain that he had prepared and mailed a brief quegtinnnaire to the residents
on Quail Avenue between 63rd and 65th Avenues North. Oe noted 23 out of the 29
questionnaires were returned, and all 23 do not have ,,pater problem and do not
wish to be included in the replacement project.
The City Manager stated City staff and consultants have spent a better part of
five years trying to find a correlation to explain why some residents have
problems and some do not. He added the 4/5 vote by the Council is allowed by
State statute for all improvement projects and is not a unique part of this
project. Mayor Nyquist reminded the Council this resolution is merely setting
the policy and procedures for the water main replacements, not establishing a
project. Mayor Nyquist added his own personal opinion is unless a petition
comes in from a particular street it will not be included in the project.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -54
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR INITIATION AND FINANCING OF
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTover
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously.
i s
4 -11 -88 -6-
The City Manager stated the tentative schedule prepared by staff is very
ambitious and if a petition does not come in there will be no project.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:29 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48
P.m.
DISCUSSION ITEM
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND OUR EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITATIONS
The City Manager explained over the last few years staff has been discovering
problems with the existing zoning ordinance for the City. He added the courts
have also been shifting the burden of proof of nonconformance to the City
instead of the applicant. Councilmember Lhotka stated he feels this ordinance
is long overdue for updating. Councilmember Theis stated he would like to have
certain points within the ordinance more clarified so interpretations do not
have to be made. Councilmember Scott inquired if staff has a set time frame for
completing these changes. The City Manager stated that all details have not yet
been discussed with the City Attorney, but he believes staff could be prepared
to submit a rough draft of all the changes within 60 to 90 days. He explained
after a rough draft is prepared, the Council could review the changes and refer
the rough draft to the Planning Commission for their comments.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
directing staff to review the current zoning ordinance, prepare recommended
changes, and present a preliminary draft to the City Council. The motion passed
unanimously.
_R_ESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager presented a Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving Contract
1988 -G (Tree Removal Improvement Project No. 1988 -11). Councilmember Hawes
inquired if the City pays the full amount of the contract whether one or one
hundred trees are removed. The City Manager stated the City will only pay for
the number of trees that are removed.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -55
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1988 -G (TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1988 -11)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Amending Fee Schedules Relating to the
Administration of the Noxious Weed and Tree Removal Accounts. A brief
discussion then ensued relative to the current fees and procedures for removal
of noxious weeds. Councilmember Lhotka stated he believes there should be some
type of penalty system, or the fee should be large enough to penalize those
people who choose to have the City do their work.
4 -11 -88 -7-
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -56
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING FEE SCHEDULES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF NOXIOUS WEED AND
TREE REMOVAL ACCOUNTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Improvement Project No.
1988 -12, Acoustical Improvements to City Council Chambers, and Accepting
Proposal for Acoustical Engineering Services. The City Manager explained over
the past few years the City has hired three or four consultants to review the
acoustical and noise problems within the City Council chambers. He noted each
consultant had said the problem would be easy to fix yet none of the solutions
have worked. He stated that to assure that the desired results are obtained,
staff is recommending that the City employ the services of an acoustical
engineering consultant to analyze the existing conditions, identify the cause of
the existing problems, and recommend a solution. He noted City staff has
interviewed several firms which specialize in this area and are very comfortable
recommending the firm of William H. 0. Kroll and Associates, who has a long list
of successful projects.
RESOLUTION NO. 88 -57
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1988 -12, ACOUSTICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AND ACCEPTING PROPOSAL FOR ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Declaring Earle Brown Days as a Civic
Event. He explained by declaring Earle Brown Days a civic event it allows more
opportunities for advertising and waives certain administrative fees.
RESOLUTION °NO 88 -58
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM MAY 27 THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 1
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager presented a Resolution Supporting the Twin Cities Bid to Host
the 1996 Summer Olympics.
4 -11 -88 -8-
RESOLUTION N0, 88 -11
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TWIN CITIES BID TO HOST THE 1996 SUMMER OLYMPICS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if the olympic teams would be using the City's swimming
pool. The City Manager stated at one time the pool was on the list of possible
sites, but because there is no room for seating and the fact that the City would
have to close the pool to its normal customers it has been dropped from the
list. He added it is possible that the pool will be used for off -peak hour
practices.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO OPEN A SKATING RINK AT
HAPPY HOLLOW PARK
Councilmember Hawes explained that the neighborhood in this area would very much
like to have the skating rink opened at Happy Hollow park for the 1988 -89
skating season. He stated he believes the City should give it one more chance.
Councilmember Theis inquired if the City has ever closed a skating rink that had
been reopened by petition. The City Manager stated that Lions park was closed
after being reopened by a petition.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes
to approve the opening of a skating rink at Happy Hollow park without a warming
house or attendant for the 1988 -89 winter season. The motion passed
unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO PLOW TRAILWAYS USED AS
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
The City Manager explained the City has always plowed across Central park
connecting to 63rd Avenue. He noted there have been several requests for the
area around Northport park and Brookwood /Grandview to be plowed. He added there
have been a consistent number of requests and City crews have been able to
detect large amounts of usage over the snow. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what
the additional costs would be for plowing these areas. The Director of Public
Works stated it would amount to $200 to $300 a year.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve the plowing of trails at Northport park, Lions park leading to the
pedestrian bridge over T.H. 100, and at Grandview park leading to the pedestrian
bridge over T.H. 100. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE A FEASIBILITY
STUDY FOR A SENIOR CENTER AND ATHLETIC ACTIVITY /PROGRAM CENTER
The City Manager explained that the Parks and Recreation Department utilizes the
gyms at all the elementary schools, the junior highs, and the high schools. He
noted because the schools are starting to program more activities, the City's
programs are being bumped out of use more and
g P gym more. He also stated because
i
4 -11 -88 -9-
of limited space, the City cannot offer some programs more than one night a week
and the Parks and Recreation staff find themselves competing with each other for
prime time gym space. He stated staff is recommending the Council direct the
staff to prepare a cost estimate for this type of building, and it could be
brought back as a 1989 budget item.
There was a motion b Councilmember Scott and seconded nded b Councilmember Hawes
es
directing staff to prepare a cost estimate for a feasibility study of a senior
center and athletic facility /program center. The motion passed unanimously.
LEGISLATIVE AND LRT UPDATE
The City Manager briefly reviewed the proposed corridors for the light rail
transit (LRT) system and noted the proposed corridors do not appear to even
serve the northwest area. Councilmember Lhotka noted that abutting counties are
sending representatives to the Hennepin County meetings to view and coax certain
routes which would eventually connect into these other counties. He noted at
this time the proposed corridors are following the most successful bus routes.
The City Manager added that another issue that is not completely cleared up at
this time is whether the LRT would be underground or above ground.
g g und.
The City Manager noted that recently he had sent out some items regarding
proposed changes from the legislature. He noted some of the items quoted have
already changed and he will try to send new information to the Councilmembers.
1989 BUDGET
The City Manager stated in two and a half weeks he and the Finance Director
would be distributing the initial forms for the 1989 budget to department heads.
He noted he would like the Council to give some thought to the current budget
process and think of items they would like considered within the 1989 budget.
He stated one item that he will be asking the Council to consider is raising the
minimum on capital outlay purchases. He stated at this time anything over $100
is considered a capital outlay item, but staff is finding that more and more
small items cost over $100. Councilmember Theis stated he would like to see the
minimum raised to $250 to $500. The City Manager stated he and the Finance
Director would be returning to the Council with a recommendation.
ON -SALE WINE AND NONINTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR LICENSES FOR DAYTON'S
Councilmember Scott noted that the investigating officer made a rather strong
recommendation regarding a certain party listed for the liquor licenses, yet the
police chief made an opposite recommendation. She inquired why this had been
done. The City Manager stated the situation which was described in the
investigating officer's report has been cleared up. Councilmember Scott stated
it appears the situation is an ongoing problem and may be cleared up at this
time but could reappear in the future. The City Manager stated Dayton Hudson
has assured the City there will be no further problems. Councilmember Scott
stated if the Council approves this license she would like the police department
to keep a careful eye on the licensee.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve the on -sale wine and nonintoxicating malt liquor licenses for Dayton's.
The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from the vote.
0
4 -11 -88 -10-
LICENSE TO UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES FOR THE HOWE COMPANY
Mayor Nyquist noted the Howe Company is a tenant within the same building as his
business, and he would be turning the gavel over to Mayor pro tem Hawes to avoid
any possible conflict of interest.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to approve the license to utilize explosives for the Howe Company. The motion
passed. Mayor Nyquist abstained from the vote.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City
Council adjourned at 9 :49 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
4 -11 -88 -11-
PROCL,- %LOTION 7a,
DECLARING APRIL 10 -23, 1988, AS THE KICKOFF OF
REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICE
WHEREAS, information - seeking skills are a requirement of lifelong learning in
the information age; and
WHEREAS, a variety of materials which foster the habits of reading as an
enriching activity are available '
g in public libraries; Y p r and
WHEREAS, such skills are best developed in children from an early age and with
consistency across a child's learning experiences; and
WHEREAS, public libraries serve pre - school and school -age children with
resources additional to those provided by schools and at times when
school is not in session; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota librarians are participating with the American Library
Association in promoting through 1989 what United States Secretary of
Education William Bennett has called the "Best Gift " - -that is, a
library card for every child; and
WHEREAS, this promotion occurs during the same period that all Minnesota
counties will be participating in regional public library systems so
that by the end of 1989 all citizens of the state will for the first
time in history have access to publicly supported library services;
and
WHEREAS, the Center for the Book at the Library of Congress has declared 1989
to be The Year of the Young Reader; and
WHEREAS, librarians are working together with a broad artnershi of educator
P P s,
parents, care providers, the media, and others to promote library
services to children; and
WHEREAS, public libraries are working towards their goals of serving every
person; and
WHEREAS, April 10 -16, 1988, is the Week the Young Child; and April 17 -23,
1988, is National Library Week; and
WHEREAS, Governor Perpich has proclaimed April 10 -23, 1988, including the Week
of the Young Child and National Library Week, as the kickoff of
registration for public library service to every child in Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council_ of the City of Brooklyn
Center endorses that every child has readily available access to public library
service and materials (whether by walk -in or library card /registration) and that
this access be additional to that provided by schools and encourages its
membership to work with public libraries in their communities to ensure that
each child has library service.
Date Mayor
Seal
Attest:
Clerk
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING MAY 1 - -7, 1988, AS MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK
WHEREAS, Cities are a grass roots governmental system which
represents a close relationship between elected
officials and citizens; and
WHEREAS, Some 80 percent of the people in Minnesota choose to
raise their families and make their homes within our
state's cities; and
WHEREAS, Cities provide the basic services necessary to insure
the health, safety, and well being of the people- -
services such as water, streets, and police and fire
protection; and
WHEREAS, Cities exhibit amazing versatility in funding unique
ways to cost effectively provide these services to
their residents; and
WHEREAS, Cities are essential to the future protection and
development of our resources; and
WHEREAS, It is appropriate to recognize the work of city
officials, city employees, and volunteers in providing
for economic growth and vitality of our communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State
of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the first week in May to be
MINNESOTA CITIES WEEK
in Minnesota and urge citizens to take this opportunity to learn
more about city government and how they can become more involved.
Date Mayor
Seal
Attest:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 4/25/88
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1987 -M
(REHABILITATION OF WELL HOUSES NO. 5 AND 6, IMPROVEMENT
DEPT. HEAD'S APPROVAL:
DIRECTOR OF $481. 1 C W K S
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached YES
On April 19, 1988, bids were received and opened for the rehabilitation of Well
House No. 5 (located at 7001 Camden Avenue No.) and Well House No. 6 (located at
1207 69th Avenue No.). A summary of the work items included in this project is
attached.
The low bid received is in the lump sum amount of $60,990, compared to the
architect's original estimate of $43,300. This substantial difference in cost
is attributed to the following factors:
1. Additional work items, not included in the architect's original
estimate, including more structural and interior (ceiling) replacements
than originally estimated, more concrete work than originally
estimated, and the costs for compliance with OSHA and Minnesota
Department of Health requirements .............approx. $8000
2. Insurance requirements. As recommended by the City's Risk Management
Consultant, the contract requires the contractor to provide a $2
million General Liability insurance policy, a Builder's Risk policy,
and a Workmen's Compensation and Employer's Liability insurance policy.
For smaller contractors, these requirements may increase their
insurance premiums up to ......... approx. $2000
3. A 15% underestimation of costs because of the wide variety of work
items, the need to use a number of suppliers and subcontractors, and
the small quantities of each work item ........ approx. $8000.
net cost increase ........ approx. $18,000.
After reviewing the bids received with the architect, it is my opinion that the
• low bid received is a fair one, and that the City could not obtain a lower bid
by rejecting the current bids and advertising new bids.
It is also m opinion y p n that the scope of the work detailed by the plans and
specifications is the minimum work which needs to be done to rehabilitate these
buildings so as to serve the City's needs. And, a look at the buildings
(especially Well House No. 6) makes it obvious that the work needs to be done
this year.
The architect (Johnson -Smith Inc.) reports that the low bidder (David N.
Volkmann Construction Inc.) has completed several projects that their firm has
designed, and that the contractor's workmanship and performance on these
contracts has been excellent.
Recommendation
Award the contract to the low bidder. A resolution is provided for that
purpose.
r
r
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1987 -M
(REHABILITATION OF WELL HOUSES NO. 5 AND 6, IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1987 -20)
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project
No. 1987 -20 (Rehabilitation of Well Houses No. 5 and No. 6), bids were received,
opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Director of Public Works, on the
19th day of April, 1988. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount
David N. Volkmann Construction Inc. $60,990.00
R /Con Construction, Inc. 63,900.00
Socon Construction, Inc. 79,990.00
W.H. Cates Construction, Inc. 83,500.00
WHEREAS, it appears that David N. Volkmann Construction Inc. of Circle
Pines, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
enter into contract with David N. Volkmann Construction Inc. in the
name of the City of Brooklyn Center for Improvement Project No.
1987 -20 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved
by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return
forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except
that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest
bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed.
3. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1987 -20 is
hereby amended from $50,700 to $63,390. The estimated cost is
comprised of the following:
Item As Ordered As Amended
Contract Costs $43,300 $60,990
Engineering Consultant Costs
Basic Fee (fixed fee) 6,400 6,400
Additional Fees for
construction supervision
(on hourly basis) 1.000 (est) 1.000 (est)
Total $50,700 $68,390
RESOLUTION NO.
4. All project costs will be financed from the Public Utility Fund.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF
BROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE
C ENTER
911
TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager /
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: April 20, 1988
RE: Summary of Work Items Included in
Project 1987 -20, Contract 1987 -M
Rehabilitation of Well Houses No. 5 and 6
Following is a summary of work items included in this project.
On Well House No. 5 (located at 7001 Camden Avenue No.)
- Reroofing entire building (610 square feet, including 2 sections of
sloped roof with asphalt shingles and 2 sections of "flat" roof with
EPDM roofing membrane)
- Replacement of entire roof drainage system, all metal fascia and trim
- Removal of all exterior wood siding and installation of wall insulation
and new wood siding
- Removal and replacement of all exterior plywood (on peaked portions of
walls) and permanent closure of all windows
- Replacement of screen walls and doors
- Replacement of concrete stoop
- Interior remodeling as needed to reduce moisture and condensation
problems
- Safety features in the chlorine room as required by OSHA and by the
Minnesota Department of Health
- Repair and replacement of numerous, minor accessory features which were
found to be deteriorated
- Painting, minor electrical and mechanical work.
Mr. G. G. Splinter
Page Two
April 20, 1988
On Well House No. 6 (located at 1207 69th Avenue No.)
- Reroofing entire building (3200 square feet) including structural
changes as necessary to convert two sections of flat roof into a
sloped -roof design
- Replacement of deteriorated members of the roof and ceiling structures
- Replacement of entire roof drainage system, all metal fascia and trim
- Repair of exterior wood siding
- Removal and replacement of all exterior plywood (on peaked portions of
walls) and closure of all, except one, windows
- Replacement of screen walls and doors
- Removal of concrete patio and installation of new concrete sidewalk
- Removal of all ceilings and ceiling insulation (except in garage area),
installation of a flat ceiling system in areas which previously had
vaulted ceilings, and installation of new gypsum wallboard ceilings,
with new ceiling insulation, in entire building, except the garage
area
- Safety features in the chlorine room as required by OSHA and by the
Minnesota Department of Health
- Repair and replacement of numerous, minor accessory features which were
found to be deteriorated
- Painting and a substantial amount of electrical and mechanical work.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meetin Date 4/25/88
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -C,
(CONSTRUCTION OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE, PROJECT NO. 1985 -23)
DEPT. HEAD'S APPRO AL:
DIRECTOR OF'468LIC WO KS
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:. (supplemental sheets attached YES
All work under Contract 1986- C,*for general construction of the Centerbrook Golf
Course, has been completed satisfactorily by Shafer Contracting Co., the general
contractor for this project.
As shown in the resolution, and detailed in the supplementary memo, a total of
15 Change Orders and 4 Supplemental Agreements were executed during the course
of the project.
The final contract cost exceeds the original contract amount by approximately
$64,000. Of that amount, $60,450 is due to the increase in earthwork quantities
which became necessary when the amount of consolidation of soils resulting from
the application of surcharge meterials was less than predicted by the soil
engineer's forecasts (i.e., because the soil consolidated less than forecasted,
it was necessary to remove more of the surcharge than expected in order to
restore the amount of storm water retention capacity within the Shingle Creek
flood plain, as required by the City's permit from the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission).
A preliminary review of all project costs associated with the development of the
golf course indicates that the total costs, excluding legal costs relating to
the matter of clearing title to the properties claimed by MNDOT, will be very
close to the budgeted total of $1,770,392. It is anticipated that a final
accounting of all project costs can be completed within the next 60 to 90 days.
Recommendation
I recommend the adoption of the attached resolution, noting that the performance
of Shafer Contracting Co. on the project has been very satisfactory, and that
their cooperation in resolving and negotiating change orders has been
reasonable.
•
�b
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1986 -C,
(CONSTRUCTION OF CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE, PROJECT NO. 1985 -23)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1986 -C signed with the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Shafer Contracting Co., Inc., has satisfactorily
completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
Improvement Project No. 1985 -23, Construction of Centerbrook
Golf Course
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and approved
according to the following schedule:
As Approved Final Amount
a. Centerbrook Golf Course
Original Contract $ 973,975.25 $1,036,995.23
Change Order No. 1 2,480.00 2,480.00
Change Order No. 3 (53,655.00) (53,655.00)
Change Order No. 4 1,140.00 1,140.00
Change Order No. 5E 512.60 512.60
Change Order No. 5S 800.00 800.00
Change Order No. 6 2,424.00 2,424.00
Change Order No. 7 785.00 517.32
Change Order No. 8 4,541.50 4,541.50
Change Order No. 9 10,843.75 10,843.75
Change Order No. 10 4,500.00 4,500.00
Change Order No. 11 1,826.50 1,826.50
Change Order No. 12 3,268.50 3,268.50
Change Order No. 13 580.28 580.28
Change Order No. 14 2,947.64 4,239.54
Change Order No. 15 1.909.58 1.909.58
Total Golf Course $ 958,879.60 $1,022,923.80
b. Watermain Construction
Change Order No. 2 $ 2,820.00 $ 2,820.00
Change Order No. 3 39,545.00 42,153.50
Supplemental Agreement 3 4,366.87 4,366.87
Total Watermain Construction $ 46,731.87 $ 49,340.37
RESOLUTION NO.
C. Storm Sewer Construction
Supplemental Agreement 1 $ 164,615.00 $ 166,771.00
Supplemental Agreement 2 5,600.00 5,600.00
Supplemental Agreement 3 10,543.02 10,543.02
Supplemental Agreement 4 1.690.00 1.690.00
Total Storm Sewer Construction $ 182,448.02 $ 184,604.02
Total Contract 1986 -C $1,188,059.49 $1,256,868.19
2. The value of work performed is more than the original contract
amount plus approved change orders and supplemental agreements by
$68,808.70 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment in the amount of
$31,232.08 be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's
receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement
under said contract shall be $1,256,868.19.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
PROJECT 1985 -23 CENTERBROOK GOLF COURSE
SUMMARY OF CONTRACT, SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS AND CHANGE ORDERS
Contract,
Change Order,
Supplemental Date Amount Final
Agreement Approved Item Description Approved Amount
1986 -C 02/24/86 Site removals, earthwork,
timber piling, asphalt road
and path, concrete curb and
gutter, pedestrian bridge
installation, storm drainage
culverts, chainlink fencing
and backstops, site lighting
and electrical, planting
and seed and sod installation. $973,975.25 $1,036,995.23
SA #1 11/10/86 Upgrade MNDOT 27" storm sewer
to 48" storm sewer. Note
The entire storm sewer project
is being funded thru the
City's local Municipal State
Aid Street account. Under
agreement with MNDOT, 71% of
these costs will be reimbursed
to the City by MNDOT. $164,615.00 $166,771.00
SA #2 11/25/86 Furnish, install, maintain and
remove traffic barriers
adjacent to TH 100 in
connection with storm sewer
construction. Note: Cost
share will be City 29 % /MNDOT
71 %. $5,600.00 $5,600.00
SA 43A 12/19/86 r
19 6 Fu nish and P lace sewer rock
for dewatering purposes in
connection with 16" watermain
construction. $4,366.87 $4,366.87
SA #3B 02/20/87 Replace poor soil with gravel
in connection with storm sewer
construction and contractor's
claim for expenses due to down
time due to poor soil
conditions. Note Cost share
will be City 29 % /MNDOT 71 %. $10,543.02 $10,543.02
CO 41 05/19/86 Excavation and placement of
additional surcharge material
to fill depressions and
removal of trees between 48"
and 24" storm sewer outlets. $2,480.00 $2,480.00
CO 42 05/19/86 Furnish and place Mirafi
fabric over 16" water main to
protect watermain. $2,820.00 $2,820.00
CO #3 07/28/86 Due to discovery of poor soils
along the proposed course of
the water main and the
discovery of a new course that
does not require piling
support the items relating to
water main totaling $67,000
were deleted from the golf
course project, and a new
trunk water main was ordered
installed at a cost of $39,545
with those costs chargeable to
the Public Utility Fund. In
addition, this change order
added the following items to
the golf course construction
at a cost of $13,345:
modification of sliding hill
grading and install sanitary
sewer force main to within 5
LF of the clubhouse. The
result of this change order is
a net reduction in contract
costs of $14,110. ($14,110.00) ($11,501.50)
CO #4 11/12/86 Removal of asphalt in Lions
Park parking lot and path in
the North Little League Field
that was not shown on the
plans. $1,140.00 $1,140.00
CO #5E 12/11/86 Revised details for electrical
service to the clubhouse as
required by changed
conditions. $512.60 $512.60
CO #5S 10/02/86 Regrading, seeding,
fertilizing and mulching area
of South Little League Field
eroded by water from Russell
and 54th Street. $800.00 $800.00
CO #6 11/10/86 Amend Change Order #5, add
sod to sliding hill area and
add sod in the southern area
of the Little League ballfield. $2,424.00 $2,424.00
CO #7 02/20/87 Furnish and place temporary
class #5 aggregate path from TH
100 pedestrian bridge to
existing asphalt path west of
park shelter. $785.00 $517.32
CO #8 04/06/87 Revisions to the maintenance
garage in location and size. $4,541.50 $4,541.50
CO #9 04/06/87 Pedestrian bridge
rehabilitation modifications
deleting the bid amount of
$20,000 and adding $30,843.75. $10,843.75 $10,843.75
CO #10 lace sod in all 05/11/87 Furnish and
P
seeded areas inside the
ballfield fences. $4,500.00 $4,500.00
CO #11 07/05/87 Revised details for
construction of maintenance
garage - including additional
soil correction, slab
reinforcements and additional
length of water service line. $1,826.50 $1,826.50
CO #12 07/09/87 Increase area of fairway
topsoil to include all
disturbed rough areas, change
rough seed from annual rye to
MNDOT mix #5, revise floating
oil skimmer, and misc. minor
revisions. $3,268.50 $3,268.50
CO #13 07/22/87 Add concrete apron to Little
League dumpster, remove C &G
and replace depressed curb in
front of dumpster, remove bike
path by tennis courts, and
remove bituminous driveway
apron to old Little League
parking area. $580.28 $580.28
CO #14 08/04/87 Remove 6 ft asphalt path along
fairway #1 and replace with 8
ft path to provide widened
fairway No. 1. $2,947.64 $4,239.54
CO #15 02/08/88 Construction of berm along #5
green, class 5 aggregate at
maintenance garage, additional
grading, and installing a 10
ft gate in lieu of specified 4
ft gate. $1,909.58 $1,909.58
SA #4 03/22/88 Remove concrete apron on
abandoned storm sewer,
bulkhead abandoned 24" CMP,
bulkhead existing sanitary
sewer under TH 100, and seed
.6 acres. Note Cost share
will be City 29%/MNDOT 71 %. 1,690.00 1,690.00
Total $1,188,059.49 $1,256,868.19
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION DENYING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 88001
WHEREAS, the Church of the Nazarene (Church) holds a special use permit for
a sanctuary, fellowship hall and 35 space parking lot located at 501 73rd Avenue
North; and
WHEREAS, the property owned by the Church and subject to the special use
permit is zoned R1, one family residence district, and is generally surrounded by
residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the Church's existing parking lot has been used as a park and ride
facility by commuters taking buses operated by the Metropolitan Transit Commission
(MTC); and
WHEREAS, the MTC and the Church have proposed an expansion of the parking
lot to 105 spaces to accommodate a larger park and ride facility; and
i
WHEREAS, Section 35 -220, subdivision 2 of the City's Zoning Ordinance
lists five findings which must be made by the City Council prior to the amendment of a
special use permit; and
WHEREAS, the application has been heard by the Planning Commission on
February 11 and February 25, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the application on
March 14, 1988, at which time it heard testimony from all persons wishing to address
the Council on the matter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center that the council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed expansion of the Church parking lot from 35 to 105 spaces
is associated solely with the more intensive use of the site as a park
and ride facility and not with any function integral to the Church.
2. The use of a church parking lot as a park and ride facility is not a use
necessarily incidental to a church and therefore not an inherent part
of a special use permit for a church.
3. The proposed expansion of the parking lot is sufficiently large to
require formal modification of the Church's special use permit.
4. The neighborhood surrounding the Church is primarily residential and
it is the policy of City Council to preserve in such areas an
environment suitable for residential use. The proposed use is
similar in effect on surrounding uses in some respects to the effect of
a large parking lot for a commercial use. These effects would have an
adverse impact on the residential character of the neighborhood.
, .
RESOLUTION NO.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that Planning Commission Application No. 88001 is hereby denied for
the following reasons:
5. The condition specified in Section 35 -220, subdivision 2(a) of the
Zoning Ordinance will not be met because there is a greater threat to
public safety through the commission of crimes against persons or
property by presence of additional persons in the area as a result of
the expanded park and ride facility.
6. The condition specified in Section 35 -220, subdivision 2(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance will not be met because the parking lot is
aesthetically less than desirable and because litter, glare from the
parking lot lights, and noise and fumes of traffic using the expanded
park and ride facility will diminish the enjoyment of surrounding
property and impair its value.
7. The conditions specified in Section 35 -220, subdivision 2(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance will not be met because increasing the size of the
parking area by a factor of three will result in a similar increase in
traffic to and from the site and will contribute to the congestion of
surrounding public streets.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of
April , 1988, at 7 :30 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an amendment to Chapter 11 regarding the issuance of nonintoxicating
liquor licenses for municipal facilities and events.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96
hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE
ISSUANCE OF NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSES FOR MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
AND EVENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Brooklyn Center Code Section 11 -102, Subd. 2 is amended to
read as follows:
Subdivision 2. "On- Sale" licenses may be granted only to bona fide
clubs, bowling establishments, restaurants and hotels where food is prepared and
served for consumption on the premises or to the City of Brooklyn Center for
municipal facilities and events "On- sale" licenses shall permit the sale of
beer for consumption on the premises only.
Section 2. Brooklyn Center Code Section 11 -102, Subd. 4 is amended to
read as follows:
Subdivision 4. "Temporary on- sale" licenses may be granted to clubs,
charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations or to the City of Brooklyn
Center for municipal facilities and events only. "Temporary on- sale" licenses
shall be subject to any special terms and conditions as the City Council may
prescribe.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
APRIL 14, 1988
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
George Lucht at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards and Ann
Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren
and Recording Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. Chairman Lucht stated that Commissioners
Bertil Johnson, Lowell Ainas and Mike Nelson had called indicating that they would
not be able to attend this evening's meeting and were excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1988
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to approve the
minutes of the February 25, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting
in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 88002 (Coldwell Banker)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request for a variance from Section 35- 704.2c of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow more than 10% of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center to be occupied by
restaurants without providing sufficient additional parking to meet the restaurant
parking formula. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (See Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Application No. 88002 attached).
Commissioner Bernards stated that he would not participate in the review of this
variance application to avoid any possible conflict of interest because of his
association with Coldwell Banker.
The Secretary stated that a public hearing is required, notices were sent to
surrounding property owners and the applicant is present to answer questions.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application.
Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the
public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki and
Wallerstedt. Not voting: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed.
Commissioner Wallerstedt stated she agrees with Mr. Lidstone of Coldwell Banker
that there is excess parking at the Humboldt Square shopping center. She asked for
clarification between an ordinance amendment and granting of the variance.
Chairman Lucht explained that granting the variance may set a precedent for other
shopping centers. He asked the Secretary for his opinion. The Secretary
4 -14 -88 _1_
explained that in order to grant a variance, the standards for variances have to be
met and, in the opinion of the staff, in this case, they are not met. He stated there
is no real ordinance related hardship, this is not necessarily a unique situation
and the standards for variances do not authorize economic hardships. He explained
that he believed it would be inappropriate to grant a variance in this case.
However, he stated, that the applicant has made a good argument that his request will
not be detrimental. In cases such as these, the City has been generally willing to
amend its ordinance so any similiar situation can be accorded the same
consideration.
Commissioner Wallerstedt inquired if any problems with other shopping centers are
foreseen in the future. The Secretary stated that he did not foresee any future
problems if the ordinance is changed. He stated that, to a certain extent, there is
generally a surplus of parking spaces in retail shopping centers. He explained
that a reduction in the retail parking formula was looked at a couple of years ago,
but was basically rejected because it would alter the density or floor area ratios in
retail areas in an unacceptable manner. The Secretary stated that by allowing
restaurants to occupy a greater area in a retail shopping center without applying a
more restrictive formula would not affect density or floor area ratios, it would
just allow a perhaps more intense use of existing space.
ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88002 (Coldwell Banker)
Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend
denial of Application No. 88002 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are
not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki and Wallerstedt.
Not voting: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend
approval of an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding restaurant
space allowed in shopping centers. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,
Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 88003 (Equitec Institutional Fund III)
The Secretary introduced the next item of business, an appeal of a determination by
the Zoning Official that day care centers are not permitted in the Industrial Park
(I -1) zone. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Application No. 88003 attached). He stated that he has more
reservations since the writing of the staff report about the appropriateness of day
care uses in the I -1 zoning district. He pointed out that the I -1 zone allows, as
permitted uses, various manufacturing and service uses that do not appear to be
compatible with day care uses. The Secretary also noted that the City Council has
discussed the possiblity of eliminating some of the commercial uses already allowed
in the I -1 zone because of a belief that they too may be inappropriate uses in
portions of the Industrial Park. Specifically, the Secretary mentioned a possible
proposal for a fast food restaurant at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway
and Freeway Boulevard. He also noted that it seems that recent court decisions seem
to place the burden on cities to show that special use permits are not appropriate
rather than the burden being on the applicant to show that special uses are
appropriate in particular situations and it may well be that the City may consider
eliminating some uses from consideration in the I -1 zone rather than adding new
uses.
The Secretary explained that it was not long ago that the City adopted regulations
which would allow day care facilities in commercial zone districts (Cl and C2). He
4 -14 -88 -2-
i
noted that prior to that day care uses had only been comprehended in residential
zones such as family day cares in single family homes and the use of church
facilities to provide day care. He noted that the City, at the time of the adoption
of these regulations, gave careful consideration and specifically noted that day
cares would be inappropriate in commercial shopping centers and next to certain
types of uses. He added that some consideration was even given at that time to
allowing day cares in the industrial zones as principal uses, but that it was
rejected as being inappropriate. He noted that it does not appear that there are
many, or any, appropriate locations in the I -1 zone for day cares to be located.
The Secretary added that there is land available in the C1 and C2 zones around the
Industrial Park which could be put to use for day care centers that are more
appropriate than the site being considered by the applicant. He noted the location
of the Learning Tree, the fact that there are day care operations being conducted in
churches on Humboldt Avenue just east of the Industrial Park, and other locations
convenient to the I -1 zone. He added that there is vacant, C1 zoned land, which
already comprehends day care uses across the street from the proposed site which
could be developed.
He concluded by stating that all of these factors raise serious reservation about
the desirability and compatibility of day care uses in the Industrial Park Zoning
District and lead him to recommend not changing the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Lucht then recognized Janis Blumentals, representing the appellant, who
explained that he believes the day care center is an educational use which is allowed
by special use permit in the industrial park. He explained the applicant would be
willing to cooperate if the use is granted with restrictions. Mr. Blumentals
stated that the Commission should not confuse the issue with the desirability of
fast food restaurants in the I -1 zone. He expressed the opinion that day care uses
are compatible with a number of uses allowed in the industrial park such as offices
and should, therefore, be allowed.
Chairman Lucht asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Blumentals then
introduced T. J. Wilson of Equitec, the Palmer Lake Plaza Property Manager and
Assistant Property Manager, Marshall Everson, President of LaPepiniere Montessori
School, Linda Carabelli and Debra Brown, representatives of the LaPepiniere
Montessori School. The nature of the school was explained by Debra Brown. She
stated their primary concern was for the children who are toddlers through
kindergarten in age. She explained that they are a very reputable school and
distributed pamphlets describing the school's program which offers day care from
8:30 a.m. to 3 :30 p.m. She stated a service is being offered to parents working in
the I -1 zone, that they would have a separate entrance to the building, would not
create a traffic problem and would provide a suitable play yard. In regard to
constructing a freestanding building, she stated it just isn't feasible
economically for them to provide such a facility as they have tried it in other
locations and it has not worked out. She added that they believe this site is a good
location.
Chairman Lucht stated he does not question that the school is a reputable one, but
the issue here is whether or not the use is an appropriate use in the Industrial Park
zoning district.
Mr. Blumentals stated he feels it is a good use in the I -1 zone that could be approved
with restrictions added by either considering it an educational use or amending the
ordinance to allow day care uses in the I -1 zone. He explained that the proposed
4 -14 -88 -3-
site is a large building that can be adequately modified to provide a needed service
in the area. He noted that many people in this building, and the Industrial Park,
would take advantage of the convenient location.
Mr. Everson stated that at the national and state levels senators and
representatives have advocated day care centers that provide on -site child care for
workers and he is sure this same issue, if not addressed now, will come before the
Planning Commission and City Council again in the future.
Further discussion
ensued regarding land use characteristics and zoning of day care
centers in the industrial park. Chairman Lucht stated he was not in favor of adding
day care as a comprehended use in the I -1 zone. He noted his opinion that it is
inapproppriate given the uses already comprehended in the I -1 zone.
Commissioner Wallerstedt asked where the nearest LaPepiniere Montessori School is.
Mr. Everson stated there is one in Crystal currently located in the old Thorson
school, but that this is the facility they are proposing to locate in Brooklyn
Center.
The Secretary noted the options available to the Planning Commission regarding
their consideration of this application. He stated that, first of all, the
application was an appeal to the Director of Planning and Inspection's
determination that the LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is a day care use and is,
therefore, not a comprehended use in the I -1 zoning district. He explained that
this determination is based primarily on the fact that LaPepiniere is licensed by
the Department of Human Services as a day care and that this use has the same land use
characteristics as a day care use which is nowhere listed as a comprehended use in
the I -1 zone. The Secretary further explained that the Commission could recommend
acceptance of this determination or recommend rejection of it perhaps based on a
finding that LaPepiniere is an educational use acknowledged in the I -1 zone. The
Secretary noted that schools are considered educational uses, but that no school has
been allowed in the I -1 zone. The educational uses allowed in the I -1 zone have been
such things as a school of dance or other types of instructional uses. A finding
that LaPepiniere is an educational use, if upheld by the City Council, would mean the
applicant could file for a Special Use Permit as such a use.
The Secretary continued to review the options available to the Planning Commission
noting that the Commission could also recommend an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow day care uses in the I -1 zone if the Commissioners believed this to be
appropriate. He noted that the applicants are requesting such an action if the
Commission does not recommend approval of their appeal. The Secretary concluded by
explaining that the Commission could also recommend against any ordinance amendment
if they believe it to be inappropriate.
A discussion ensued among the Comnissioners regarding the application.
Commissioner Bernards stated that from a land use basis he believed there was no
reason to uphold the applicant's appeal. He added he was also opposed to any
amendment to the ordinance that would allow day care uses in the I -1 zoning district.
ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88003 (Equitec Institutional Fund
III)
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded
by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend denial of the appeal contained in
Application No. 88003 and to uphold the Director of Planning and Inspection's
determination that a day care use is not a comprehended use in the Industrial Park
4 -14 -88 -4-
(I -1) Zoning District. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki,
Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Further discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the possibility of
amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow day care uses in the I -1 Zoning District.
Commissioner Bernards reiterated his opposition to such an amendment stating his
belief that due consideration was given to the appropriate locations for day care
uses when the City amended its ordinances to allow day cares in the C1 and C2
districts. He added that nothing has been shown to indicate that day cares are
appropriately located in the I -1 zone and that he does not find them to be compatible
overall with the other uses acknowledged in that zoning district. Commissioner
Malecki commented that day care uses might be appropriate in some particular
locations in the I -1 zone. She did not favor totally ruling out their consideration
in that zone in the future. She noted that she is not in favor of an amendment at
this time, but feels further review and study of the issue would be in order.
Chairman Lucht commented he did not at this time, see any appropriate area in the I -1
zone for day care uses, but that he was not opposed to further studying the issue in
conjunction with the proposed study of all special uses in the I -1 zone.
ACTION TO NOT RECOMMEND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Following further discussion there was amotion by Commissioner Bernards seconded
by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend to the City Council to not consider an
ordinance amendment to allow day care uses in the I -1 zoning district at this time,
but to include consideration of day care uses in any study undertaken by the City
regarding appropriate special uses in the I -1 Zoning District. Voting in favor:
Chairman Lucht, Comamissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEM
a. Development Options in the I -1 Zone.
The Secretary briefly reported on a discussion the City Council had at its last
meeting regarding development concerns in the I -1 zone. He explained that the
Council had discussed some of the limitations in the existing ordinance; the fact
that there might be a number of inappropriate uses now allowed in the I -1 zone; that
recent court decisions seem to put the burden on the City to prove that special uses
are inappropriate rather than the burden being on the applicant to show that
proposed uses are appropriate as the ordinances were originally intended. The
Secretary reviewed the history of the development of the current ordinance relating
to the I -1 zone and noted that the last major amendment to this section was to
comprehend a number of commercial uses in the I -1 zone around 1975. It appears some
of the uses may well be inappropriate. He added another consideration might be the
size of parcels in the I -1 zone, requiring large parcels for development might be
considered.
The Secretary added that the staff has looked at a draft Planned Unit Development
(P.U.D.) Ordinance for this area and other areas as well and such a draft will be
reviewed with the Commission in the near future. The Secretary added that the
reason this has become an immediate concern was the potential for a fast food
restaurant, a budget hotel, and a small office building to be located on the
northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary
stated this is a prime corner in the I -1 zone and has often been referred to by the
owners as the keystone and entrance to the Shingle Creek Business Center. The
Secretary pointed out the above mentioned uses appear to be inappropriate, but the
City might not be in a position to prohibit such uses if applications were applied
for. The land is for sale and new developers may be coming in. He noted that a
moratorium might be in order to allow study of the area.
4 -14 -88 -5-
Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that her family g has bought a new home and that she
will be moving out of Brooklyn Center. She stated that she would be submitting her
resignation from the Commission to the Mayor and that her last Commission meeting
would be the last meeting in May.
It was reported that Commissioner Bernards and Nelson would be unable to attend the
Commission's May 12, 1988 meeting and were excused.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion b Commissioner Maleck' y i seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the
meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,
Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The
motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Chairman
4 -14 -88 -6-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
1988 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding restaurant space allowed in
shopping centers.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
RESTAURANT SPACE ALLOWED IN SHOPPING CENTERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended as follows:
Section 35 -704. MINIMUM. PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.
2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office)
c. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions:
Eleven spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
or fraction thereof; eight spaces for each 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding
15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area in excess of 15,000 square feet, but not exceeding
30,000 square feet; 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area exceeding 30,000 square feet. In multi- tenant retail
centers, no additional parking spaces beyond those required by
the retail formula shall be required of restaurant uses which
altogether occupy not more than [10 %] 157, of the gross floor area
of the center. The parking formula for eating and drinking
establishments shall apply proportionately to the seats and
employees occupying space in the center over and above [ 10 %] 15%
of the gross floor area.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date Published
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
• Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 88002
Applicant: Coldwell Banker
Location: 6800 Humboldt Avenue North
Request: Variance
Background
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35- 704.2c of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow more than 10% of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center to be occupied by
restaurants without providing sufficient additional parking to meet the restaurant
parking formula. Under Section 35- 704.2c, shopping centers which provide parking
spaces based on the retail parking formula may have up to 10% of the gross floor area
of the shopping center devoted to restaurants without providing additional parking
based on the restaurant parking formula. (Although the restaurant parking formula
is based on seats, it generally works out to about one parking space per 65 sq. ft. of
gross floor area, whereas the marginal rate for the retail parking formula is one
space per 181 sq. ft. Therefore, the restaurant formula is more onerous than the
retail formula and will require more spaces for a given restaurant space once the 10%
allowance has been exceeded) . The Humboldt Square Shopping center is located at
69th and Humboldt Avenues North. The center is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue
North, on the east by the Hi Crest Square Estates townhouses, on the south by the High
Crest Apartments, and on the west by Humboldt Avenue North. A 76 station is located
at the southeast corner of 69th and Humboldt on its own parcel.
The gross floor area of the Humboldt Square Shopping center is 40,250 sq. ft. The
parking requirement for the center is 269 spaces. There are 278 spaces on the site
for a surplus of 9 spaces. Restaurants occupy 5,250 sq. ft. of the shopping center.
This exceeds by 1,225 sq. ft. the 4,025 sq. ft. comprehended under the retail parking
formula and is allowed because of its surplus of 9 parking spaces. In fact, there is
a current parking deficit of one parking stall given the restaurant seating on the
site. The proposed restaurant expansion is for 40 -45 seats. Thus, the parking
deficit would grow to approximately 21 to 24 spaces. This is then the extent of the
requested variance.
Applicant's Arguments
Mr. Gary Lidstone of Coldwell Banker has submitted a letter (attached) addressing
the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 35 -240 of the Zoning Ordinance
(also attached) . Mr. Lidstone notes that there are three restaurants in Humboldt
Square: Donut Delight, open from early morning to 4:00 p.m. ; House of Hui, open for
lunch and dinner; and Scoreboard Pizza, also open for lunch and dinner. He states
that the restaurants do not tax the parking lot and points out that even at the
busiest times of the day, the west half of the parking lot is rarely used.
In regard to the variance standards, Mr. Lidstone states that the condition upon
which the variance is based is unique to Humboldt Square because the current
restaurants do not require maximum use of the parking lot at the same time. He
states that most customers of the shopping center come for just one stop and do not
stay to shop at more than one tenant as they would at a larger center or mall. Mr.
Lidstone goes on to state that there is a hardship for both the tenant and the
landlord if the variance is not granted. The hardship experienced by Scoreboard
Pizza is contained in a letter from Donn Erickson (attached) in which he states that
large banquets for youth sports teams and for eight sponsored softball teams are
extremely tight on certain nights. They have had to turn customers away which cuts
into profitability. Also, after Brooklyn Center High School football games,
4 -14 -88 -1-
Application No. 88002 continued
students do not have adequate space to enjoy themselves. Also, more storage space
is needed. As for the landlord, N'r. Lidstone states simply that the landlord
obviously wants to keep the center fully occupied. In conclusion, rr. Lidstone
states that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public or
other tenants in the center and that there is an excess of parking based on current
demands.
Staff Evaluation
The hardships identified by the applicant basically boil down to an inability to
expand the restaurant to meet its full potential and an inability, in the short run,
to fill a vacant tenant space within the center. Staff do not believe either of
these conditions can be grounds for a hardship. If inability to expand is viewed as
a hardship, then all ordinance provisions are suspect since all ordinance
provisions work to limit development. Likewise, the inability to fill a tenant
space immediately should not be considered a hardship. Vacancies do occur and
market forces may be such that they will exist for some time. Variances should not
be granted lightly to fill a current vacancy.
In addition, the circumstances in this case are not unique. Tenant vacancies occur
regularly in all shopping centers. The fact that the donut shop is not open in the
evening cannot be relied on to distinguish this center from other shopping centers.
The donut shop could change its hours or another restaurant could take its place.
Lastly, we would agree that there is a practical parking surplus and that the
granting of the variance would do no harm to neighboring properties, except that it
would undermine Section 35 -704 and the Zoning Ordinance generally to approve a
variance that does not meet all the standards outlined in Section 35 -240.
Recommendation
There is clearly a practical surplus of parking at Humboldt Square and, for that
matter, at most retail establishments within the City. We do not believe it is
appropriate to grant the variance proposed by the applicant when the Standards for
Variance cannot be met. However, an amendment to the ordinance to allow a greater
percentage of floor area within a retail establishment to be devoted to restaurant
use without applying the seating /employee parking ratio would be appropriate.
Commission members may recall that the 10% figure was adopted in the early 1980's at
Brookdale Square's urging noting that the dynamics of a restaurant in a shopping
center are not the same as that of a freestanding restaurant.
There was nothing overly scientific about the 10% and experience has shown us that it
has not caused any significant problems. Perhaps the time is right to provide more
flexibility by allowing a greater percentage of space in a retail center to be
devoted to restaurant uses before requiring the seating /employee parking formula to
be applied.
This would acknowledge that people eat out more these days and that restaurants,
therefore, represent a greater percentage of retail tenants. It would also
implicitly acknowledge that the present retail formula is more than adequate to meet
the parking demands of retail centers.
The breakdown of restaurants in shopping centers is as follows:
4 -14 -88 -2-
Application No. 88002 continued
Center /Restaurant Gross Floor Area
Boulevard Center 19,862
- Little Brooklyn 2,000 10.07
Brookdale Square 88,363
-Yen Ching 5,280 5.98
Brookview Plaza 69,099
-None 0 0
Humboldt Square 40,250
- Scoreboard Pizza 1,750 4,34
-w /expansion 2,400 5.96
-House of Hui 1,750 4.34
-Donut Delight 1,750 4,34
Total 5,250 13.04
Total w /expansion 5,900 14.66
Northbrook Center 51,130
-Chuck Wagon 2,020 3.95
Shingle Creek Center
-6000 building 7,916
-Pizza Hut 3,040 38.40
- Rachel's Frozen Yogurt 733 9.25
Total 3,773 47.66*
-6050 building 31,570
-Lee Ann Chin 2,959 9.37
Westbrook Mall 94,572
-None. 0 0
Grand Total 402,762
Total Restaurants 21,282 5.28%
*Extra space over 10% is covered by the restaurant formula
Three of the seven centers are at or above the 10% limit. Two of the centers
( Brookview Plaza and Westbrook Mall) have no restaurants, but also have
considerable vacancy rates and may well have restaurant occupants in the future.
Brookdale has not been included in the survey, but it is doubtful that Brookdale will
ever surpass the present 10% allowance. An allowance of 15% would allow those
centers at or above the present 10% allowance to add at least one more small
restaurant. As we have indicated earlier, there is a practical surplus of parking
at all of these shopping centers with the possible exception of the Shingle Creek
Center (which is already over 15 %). Because the retail formula requires additional
parking for the smaller retail centers, staff feel there is an adequate cushion to
4 -14 -88 -3-
Application No. 88002 continued
accommodate additional restaurant space in the strip retail centers. In the case
of Humboldt Square specifically, the proposed restaurant expansion would be 40 -45
seats, or 20 to 23 parking stalls. The practical parking surplus at Humboldt Square
is approximately 100 spaces since the outer two rows of spaces are rarely used.
On the basis of the practical parking surplus at those strip centers with less than
15% restaurant space, staff would recommend denial of the requested variance, but
approval of an ordinance amendment (attached) to allow up to 15% of the gross floor
area of retail centers to be devoted to restaurant space.
4 -14 -88 -4-
I
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 88003
Applicant: Equitec Institutional Fund III
Location: 6860 Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Appeal
This application is an appeal of a determination by the Zoning Official that day care
centers are not permitted in the Industrial Park (I -1) zone. The appellant wishes
to place a LaPepiniere Montessori School and Da Care Center in the office building
Y ld
g
portion of Palmer Lake Plaza, 6860 Shingle Creek Parkway. The land in question is
zoned I -1 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by the Shingle Creek
greenstrip on the east, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the south, and by vacant I -1
zoned land on the west. The City has conveyed its determination on the proposed day
care center in a letter dated March 24, 1988 (attached) . The letter simply states
that day care is not listed as a permitted use in the I -1 zone, nor is it listed among
those commercial uses allowed by special use permit in the I -1 zone under Section 35-
330.3f.
The appellant's representative, rr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a letter
(attached) in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 -251 (also attached) .
The letter does not dispute that day care centers are not comprehended in the I -1
zoning district. Rather, it agrees that the ordinance should � o ld be changed to g g allow
day care centers in the I -1 zone based on the following:
1. Day care is compatible with existing adjacent land uses such as
offices, light industry and public parkway.
is 2. A day care center is complimentary to existing adjacent land uses
and actually reduces paving and increases landscaping.
3. Day care center traffic will not be adverse to the public streets,
the immediate neighborhood or the community, but will, in fact,
provide a valuable luable service to the office and industry employees
as well as nearby residents.
4. Traffic generated by other uses on the site will not pose a danger
to children served by the day care center. The entrance and the
outside play area are to be located away from traffic to adjacent
uses.
5. LaP
epiniere Montessori School and Da C
Y
Care enter is
an
educational use licensed as a school and a day care center. A
school (an educational use) is comprehended as a special use in
the I -1 zoning district. The school and day care center are
compatible uses.
These comments basically address the special standards applied to day care centers
in the commercial zoning districts (attached). Another set of requirements in
Sections 35 -411 and 35 -412 apply to the play yard (see Section 35 -412.7 (attached) .
The appellant has submitted a site plan which shows an enclosed play yard in the yard
area abutting 69th Avenue North. The play yard would cut off the driving lane along
the north side of the building (play yards must be contiguous to the day care center
under Section 35 -412) . The Fire Chief sees no problem with cutting off a portion of
this driving lane. A hydrant at the northeast corner of the building would have to
be relocated, however. A turnaround at the northeast corner of the site would also
have to be constructed to allow movement of fire trucks as well as cars dropping off
children.
4 -14 -88 _1_
Application No. 88003 continued
Returning to the question of use, staff are not violently opposed to, nor overly
excited about, the location of day care centers in the Industrial Park. However,
the Planning Commission and City Council should be convinced that all standards and
requirements pertaining to day care centers in commercial zones can be met in an
industrial zone as well. The standards and requirements can probably be met in this
case, but these are few such locations in the Industrial Park. Staff have surveyed
16 Minneapolis suburbs. The results of the survey are as follows:
- Eleven (11) communities do not allow day care as a principal use in any
industrial district. Of these, four cities allow day care as an
accessory use in an industrial district.
-Five (5) communities do allow day care centers as a principal use in an
industrial district. Of these, three cities allow day care by
conditional use permit.
If the Commission is sympathetic to the idea of day care in the Industrial Park, we
would recommend that it be allowed only special use permit as other commercial uses
are allowed in the I -1 zoning district. The Commission should be aware, however,
that the City Council is reviewing the present I -1 special uses with an eye to how
they are affecting development options for the remaining parcels in the I -1 zone.
Generally, staff are recommending against small, fragmented developments north of
Freeway Boulevard which would commercialize the of the industrial park
that have generally been developed with larger, consolidated developments. Day
care centers, if freestanding, would tend to be a_ smaller development in the
Industrial Park and, thus, work against an effort to promote larger developments.
We will have more information on the City Council's desires for the Industrial Park
by Thursday night's meeting.
4 -14 -88 _2_
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of
, 1988 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding restaurant space allowed in
shopping centers.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours
in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561 -5440 to make
arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING
RESTAURANT SPACE ALLOWED IN SHOPPING CENTERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
I
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended as follows:
Section 35 -704. MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED.
2. Commerce (Retail and Service /Office)
c. Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions:
Eleven spaces for the first 1,000 square feet of gross floor area
or fraction thereof; eight spaces for each 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area in excess of 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding
15,000 square feet; six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area in excess of 15,000 square feet, but not exceeding
30,000 square feet; 5.5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
floor area exceeding 30,000 square feet. In multitenant retail
centers, no additional parking spaces beyond those required by
the retail formula shall be required of restaurant uses which
altogether occupy not more than [10 %] 15% of the gross floor area
of the center. The parking formula for eating and drinking
establishments shall apply proportionately to the seats and
employees occupying space in the center over and above [10 %] 15%
of the gross floor area.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date Published
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
TIMOTHY J. KEANE
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1244 Canterbury Road • Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 • (612) 937 -3511
April 22, 1988
Mayor Dean Nyquist
Members of City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: LaPepiniere Montessori Academy
Palmer Lake Plaza
Dear Mayor Nyquist and
Members of the City Council:
This letter is offered in support of LaPepiniere Montessori Academy
and my client Equitec Properties to operate a Montessori school and
child care facility at the Palmer Lake Plaza located on Shingle Creek
Parkway. The proposal consists of a 7,000 sq. ft. Montessori school
and child care facility within Palmer Lake Plaza including an attached
4200 sq. ft. fenced exterior play area. The Palmer Lake Plaza is a
mixed use multi - tennant facility consisting of approximately 139,000
sq. ft. including 52,000 sq. ft. of office, 39,000 sq. ft. of
warehouse, and 48,000 sq. ft. of service center uses. There are
approximately 20 tenants doing business within this multi -use
facility.
LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is a family of approximatley 20
certified schools located throughout the Twin Cities Area. (See
information enclosed). Founded in 1967, LaPepiniere Montessori
Academies strive to offer the finest in complete child development and
educational programs for children. The school is in session from 8:30
A.M. to 3:30 P.M. 12 months a year. The students must enroll in
either the full day or 1/2 day school curriculum.
1. Appeal of the Planning Director's Determination the Proposed Use
is a Day -care Center and not an Educational Use
As noted in the staff report, the City Planning Director has
rendered a determination that the proposed LaPepiniere Montessori
Academy is a day -care center and not an educational use. The
distinction is an important one because educational uses are an
allowable use in the I -1 Zone with a special use permit (SUP).
Group day -care facilities are not treated as a permitted or
special use in the I -1 Zoning District. "Educational uses" are
treated as a permitted use in the C -2 Commerce District, Section
35- 322.1.h. These permitted uses are adopted by reference and
treated a permissible with a SUP in the I -1 District pursuant to
Section 35- 330.3f. There is no code definition for an
"Educational use" in the Zoning Ordinance.
April 22, 1988
Page 2, 1988
The LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is an educational use.
LaPepiniere is very different from the conventional "McDonalds
style" pre- school day -care facility with which we are accustomed.
The conventional group day -care facilites are just that -
facilities where pre - school children are cared for by day.
LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is a school for pre - school
children as well as elementary age children. The LaPepiniere
Montessori Academy is not a group baby- sitting service - it is a
rigorous adademic environment. The school session is conducted
each day from 8 :30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. All students must be
enrolled in the school for either a 1/2 day or full day session.
All school sessions are taught by Montessori accredited teachers.
All Montessori teachers must complete 2 -4 years of intensive
Montessori training beyond their previous formal academic
training. All children are enrolled as students. The minimum
enrollment term is one month and students may only commence
enrollment at certain stages of each monthly curriculum cycle.
The LaPepiniere Montessori Academy does provide extended "stay
and play" hours for enrolled students prior to and at the end of
each school day from 6:30 to 8:30 A.M. in the morning and from
3:30 to 6:30 P.M. in the afternoon. This extended care is an
accommodation to meet the scheduling needs of parents.
The Director of Planning noted in his correspondence and staff report
on this determination that since LaPepiniere Montessori Academy would
be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services to operate
both a school and group day -care facility, the use must be classified
as a day -care facility. This licensing requirement is not unique to
group child care centers. Even public schools that offer pre- school
and kindergarten programs must be licensed by the Department of Human
Services. The public schools are still educational facilities and
LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is still an educational facility, even
though it requries a group child care license from the Department of
Human Services.
LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is in all respects a school, and is
deeply committed to the principles of Montessori educational training.
We respectfully request the City Council find LaPepiniere Montessori
Academy is an educational use, and may apply for a SUP in an I -1
District.
2. Group Day -care Facilities Should be Treated as a Special Use in
I -1 District
If it is ultimitely determined the LaPepiniere Montessori Academy
will be treated as a group day -care facility and not an
educational use, the group day -care use should be considered, as a
SUP in the I -1 District.
April 22, 1988
Page 3
In October of 1986, the City Council amended Section 35- 322.1k to
permit group day -care facilities in the C -2 Commerce District.
The I -1 District, by reference in Section 35- 330.3f, permits with
a SUP all permitted uses set forth in the C -2 District. There
was no discussion in the City Council minutes of the Code
Amendment in October 1986 that this additonal allowable use in
the C -2 District should not also be adopted by reference as a SUP
use in the I -1 District. It is reasonably foreseeable that at
the time the code amendement was adopted to allow this additional
use in the C -2 District that by oversight the cross reference to
the addition as a SUP use in the I -1 District. In light of this
possible oversight, we respectfully request the City Council to
consider correcting this code question for the following reasons.
1) Increase demand for group child care facilities. Over the
last decade and continuing on, there has been a significant
trend in the increasing demand for child care facilities.
Two income households were the exception to the rule 20
years ago. Today, over 70% of all households with children
have two working parents. One working parent households are
increasing in number as well. This change in lifestyle
patterns has given rise to a need for new pre - school child
• care facilities that is continuing to grow.
2) Trend toward workplace - located child care facilities. This
trend is reflected both in the marketplace of new
developments and in the public regulation of day -care
facilities.
There are several notable examples of mixed -use business
facilites that are incorporating child care facilites in
this area. Recent examples include the Cardiac Pacemaker
Inc. facility, Miller- Schroeder Municipals in Bloomington,
the Trammell -Crow Development in Golden Valley, the
Woodbridge Properties Development in Minnetonka, and Control
Data facility in Minneapolis.
In the area of public regulation,' the Planning Director
noted in his survey of communities, 9 of the 16 communities
surveyed permitted group day -care facilities as either an
accessory use, a permitted use, or a conditional use. The
City of San Francisco goes even further, that City requires
the incorporation of group day -care facilities to be
included in significant development proposals.
April 22, 1988
Page 4
3) Parental preference to be closer to children during the work
day. The convenient location of group day -care facilities
is important to making that choice. Parents that can place
their children in a group day -care facility that is closer
to the workplace that allow the parent to respond better to
the needs of their children.
4) Group day -care is inherently compatible with certain
business workplaces. The proximity of group day -care to
workplaces for convenience as well as safety is mutually
beneficial to both business users and the children. The
City can certainly reserve the prerogative to review each
day -care proposal on a case -by -case basis to ensure both
compatibility and the health, safety and welfare of
children.
Additionally, workplace day -care facilities would be located
in areas that generaly have far less traffic, high- velocity
neighboring users and congestion.
The owner of Palmer Lake Plaza, Equitec Properties, surveyed
the 20 businesses located within that facility. That survey
found 17 of the businesses supported the inclusion of a day-
care facility in Palmer Lake Plaze, 2 were opposed, and 1
expressed no opinion. Of the 17 that supported the
inclusion of a group day -care facility, 11 responded they
would likely use this facility.
In the present case, the LePepiniere Montessori Academy would be
subject to the review and appoval of a SUP in the I -1 District. This
SUP would take into consideration all safety issues as well as the
health, welfare, and safety of the children and surrounding uses. The
SUP could certainly include reasonable conditions to assure the
ongoing compliance of the facility and operation.
For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request the Council find
a group day -care facility should be treated as a SUP in the I -1
District.
Conclusion
It is our opinion the Palmer Lake Plaza is an ideal location for the
LaPepiniere Montessori Academy. The facility and operation will
comply in all respects with the licensing regulations of the State and
the requirements of the City of Brooklyn Center. It is our belief the
LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is inherently compatible and
complimentary to the uses in Palmer Lake Plaza and the surrounding
April 22, 1988
Page 5
neighborhood. We respectfully request the City Council does find the
proposed LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is an educational use and the
application for the SUP should be processed. In the alternative, if
the City Council does not reach this conclusion, we respectfully
request the City Council amend its zoning ordinance to permit group
day -care facilities in the I -1 District with a SUP.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 937 -3511.
Respectfully submitted,
Timothy J. Ke ne
Attorney for Equitec Properties
Enclosure
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Council Meeting Date 4-25 -88
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
House Doctor and Home Energy Checkup Programs
DEPT. APPROVAL:
Personnel Coordinator
Si nature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report _. Comments below /attached
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached X
The City of Brooklyn Center has been approached by West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
(WHHSPB) to participate in two programs to provide energy conservation services to Brooklyn Center
• residents. The programs are called House Doctor and Home Energy Checkup. (Details are attached
to this memo.) Grant money is available through the Minnesota Department of Public Services,
Minnegasco, and NSP. If the City chooses to participate, costs to it include staff time in making the
grant applications and contracting with WHHSPB to administer the programs, legal expenses for
ensuring proper contracts are prepared, publicity of the program to Brooklyn Center residents, and
working with a local community energy council appointed by the city council to fulfill some of the
state's contract requirements (one of the 'City's existing commissions could serve this purpose).
The cities of Golden Valley and Crystal are also considering applying for grants for these programs.
Should the Brooklyn Center city council express an interest in participating in these programs, the
City can work with the other two cities in a joint effort to apply for grant money and contract with
WHHSPB. Then only one city would apply for the grant on behalf of all three; the money would flow
through one city instead of three, creating less administrative work for the cities.
If the city council expresses interest in participating in these programs, the next step is to work
cooperatively with Golden Valley and Crystal to determine if a joint effort can be made in obtaining
funding for these programs. Staff will then return to the council with resolutions officially approving
participation in the programs.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Direct staff to pursue participation in the House Doctor and
Home Energy Checkup programs funded by grants from the Minnesota Department of Public Services,
Minnegasco, and NSP, and direct staff to work cooperatively with the cities of Golden Valley and
Crystal in pursuing participation.
i
Welt hennepin human tervieei planning board
4100 veemm avenue south, it. louli park, minneiota 55416
Welt
bennepin
human 920 -5555
tervieei
January 27, 1988
Gerald Splinter, ci:. V.anager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Municipality:
West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board (WHHS) has recently learned of an
opportunity for your community to participate in a program to provide energy con-
servation services to your residents. Currently state legislation requires regu-
lated utilities to promote energy conservation in the communities they serve.
This promotion includes the provision of residential conservation programs such as
home energy audits and weatherization programs. The utility companies are
currently developing their plans for submission to the state describing what
efforts they are planning to undertake during the coming year.
WHHS has been administering two of these programs in six suburban Hennepin County
communities. While operating these programs we have received calls from residents
of your community expressing an interest in these programs. We also felt you
should be made aware of the program as many of your residents are rate payers of
the participating utilities and should have the opportunity to participate in
programs they help fund. We also believe that there will be a high level of
interest in your community in these programs if they are available. This is based
on our experience in similar cities we are currently serving. These communities
are St. Louis Park, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, Maple Grove, Tonka Bay and Medina.
It is possible that these programs could be made available at little cost to the
community. The model we have used in the cities mentioned above have utilized funds
frog« the utilities to pay for the service and Catanunity Energy Council Grant funds
from the Minnesota Department of Public Service to cover administrative costs. WHHS
has served as the administrator for the program. The commitment of the city is
generally restricted to providing a minimum number of staff hours in assisting
with the marketing of the program.
While there are a number of conservation activities which can be provided we have
found the House Doctor Program and Home Energy Check -up Program as the most cost
effective. The utilities have also been very supportive of these programs. A
short description of these are attached.
If your community should be interested in participating in either or both of these
programs WHHS would like to provide its assistance. We are available to answer
questions, help you in contacting the utility or the state on funding issues or to
undertake this work on your behalf.
Gerald Splinter, City Manager
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
January 27, 1988
Page Two
The utilities will be putting their plans together during the months of March and
April and woulG like to know prior to the firsc of iviarch wnat communti.es would be
interested in participating. It would be very helpful if you made your decision
prior to the end of February. If you have any questions please call. Otherwise I
will follow this up with a call in the next few weeks.
Sincerely,
Bruce Larson
Assistant Director
BL /ar
H O U S E D O C T O R P R O G R A M
The House Doctor Program is a one -day visit by a professional crew who
find and fix air leaks and insulation defects. This leads to a more
comfortable home and lower fuel bills.
The cost of the program is underwritten by Minnegasco with the admini-
strative costs covered by the Minnesota Department of Public Services.
The program is available to single family homeowners who are Minnegasco
customers and meet income guidelines for disadvantaged households as
established by the local community.
The main job of a house doctor is to find and seal air leaks in a home.
The many leaks in an average home have the same effect as a window left
partially open through the winter. These leaks are identified through
the utilization of a "blower door" test, the most advanced technology
available for assessing comfort problems.
Specific improvements which the program addresses include but are not
limited to caulking, weatherstripping, spot insulation and improving
the heating and hot water system efficiencies.
H O M E E N E R G Y C H E C K- U P P R O G R A M
The Home Energy Checkup is a visit by a professional energy analyst
who will help the resident identify opportunities to increase home
comfort and lower utility bills.
The program is exciting because: (1) It is an excellent value -- from
$20 to $40 worth of conservation materials are left or directly in-
stalled in the home: (2) The service costs just $10, or is free *,
but it is supplied by trained, experienced professionals state -
certified energy P
gY ), 3 The service includes auditors); ( 3) ud s the most
advanced technology available for assessing comfort problems (a
"blower door" test to measure and locate air leakage [drafts], and
furnace testing to measure efficiency ficiency and check for safe operation),
(4) The personnel are trained to listen to your problems and to give
you real answers, not just paperwork.
The City is cooperating to provide this service through West Hennepin
Human Services, with funding through Northern States Power. No City
tax dollars are used to support the program.
Residents are urged to take advantage of this program. It will make
your winter more comfortable, improve the'City's housing stock, and
help to keep fuel dollars in our local economy.
* Based on criteria established
b NSP
y the City and WHHS.
OUTLINE OF EACH ORGANIZATION'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Department of Public Service, Energy Division
* To provide funding for the administration and marketing of
the conservation programs through funding of the Community
Energy Council Grant.
2. Utilities (Minnegasco, Northern States Power)
* Minnegasco - Funding of the House Doctor Program work done
in individual homes.
* Northern States Power - Cost of the individual audits done
under the Home Energy Check -up Program and possibly commercial
and multi - family conservation programs.
3. West Hennepin Human Services
* Marketing of conservation programs
* Selection of participants
* Referral and assistance of applicant
* Development of grant application of CEC Grant
* All reporting requirements to participating cities, utilities,
and contractors
* Provision of audit services under the Home Energy Check -up
Program
* Administration of all conservation programs
* Selection of the sub - contractor of the House Doctor Program
* Maintenance of all fiscal reports
* Staffing of the Community Energy Councils
* Monitoring and evaluation of program
4. Participating Municipalities
* Assistance in marketing programs
* Signatory to tri -party agreements between utilities, WHHS and
cities
* Approval of resolutions authorizing submission of CEC Grant,
establishment of community energy council and authorization of
WHHS to administer program
* Appointment of representatives to the Community Energy Council
5. Lead Municipality
* Submission of CEC Grant to the state
* Sub - contract with WHHS for CEC program operation
* Invoice state for program funds upon request of sub - grantee
(WHHS)
HOUSE DCC7rOR PRCCRAM
Organizatia - ,al Curt
D . E . E . D . MINNESA.SC:O
Aczninistrative House Doc
Funds Program
.L
City of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City of
City of
F
WEST HENNEPIN�
HUMAN SERVICE
ADMINISIRAT'ION
Contract Flow -
Community Admin. Funds
Energy Council
CONTRACT Contract Flow-
Does The Work MGC Funds
Other Parties-
Admin. Funds
Not directly involved
HOME ENERGY. .CI-E; UP PROGRAM
Orcani:at =anal Chart
D.E.E.D. NSP
Acninistrative HOME ENERGY
Funds CHECK -UP
z r t
c i t y of !- - - - - - - - - City of
City of
f
i
� I
HUMAN VICES '
ADMSNIS`gtATICiV
Contract Flow -
Community P Funds
Energy Council
CONTRPCTOR Contract Flow- -
Does The Fork I42C Funds
Other Parties
Admin. Funds
Not directly involved
COMMUNITY ENERGY COUNCIL
Membership:
At a minimum representatives from:
Labor
Small Business
Volunteer organizations
Senior citizens
Low and moderate income groups
Numbers
Minimum is 5
Option 1: 5 from each city
Option 2: Each city appoints a set number less than 5,
will coordinate to insure appropriate represen-
tation
Appointment:
By local city council
Established:
Resolution of each City Council
Staff Support:
West Hennepin Human Services
Meetings:
Local Option
A. Option 1:
Meet on an as needed - basis as large group (monthly at start -up,
quarterly later)
B. Option 2:
Meet as large group annually or semi - annually - individual city
representatives meet as sub - committees to consider local issues
Length of Meetings:
1� to 2 hours
Purpose:
* Act as a liaison between the city they represent and the city
council and the Community Energy Council, CEC sponsored programs
and the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
* Provide advice and ideas on conducting marketing activities for
the program
* Develop recommendations to be forwarded to West Hennepin Human
Services Planning Board regarding selection of a sub - contract for
the House Doctor Program
* Provide important oversight in the development, marketing, im-
plementation and evaluation of the various programs sponsored by
the CEC
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
ST. PAUL 55155
RUDY PERPICH
GOVERNOR
Dear Community Leaders:
The Governor's Community Energy Program is one of my top priorities.
These are difficult economic times for many Minnesotans, and the cost
of energy is one of the biggest problems. We live at the far end of the
energy pipelines, importing 99% of our fuel. Thus we are vulnerable to
supply interruptions and high prices. Minnesota's wholesale energy bill
is now larger than the state budget. Most of that money leaves our
communities, never to return. For every barrel of oil or cubic foot of
gas that flows by pipeline into Minnesota, dollars flow out; and with
those dollars go economic activity and jobs.
I want Minnesota to become the most energy - efficient state in the
country. The Community Energy Program is an important way to meet this
challenge - -to carry out a block -by- block, town -by -town weatherization/
conservation program for residents and businesses, to provide critical
energy assistance to low and moderate income people and senior citizens,
and to develop our own energy resources.
Our Community Energy Program has made remarkable progress. In the
past twelve months, eighteen communities have formed Community Energy
Councils and are operating programs designed to save energy, jobs and
money. Each Council is drawing on the unique talents of the local community
to address the energy problems of homeowners, renters and businesses. The
Councils are promoting projects which combine private and public resources
to capture concrete economic savings and provide leadership for effective
local efforts. Local people are making decisions on energy policies that
involve city governments, Chambers of Commerce, local businesses, Community
Action Programs, state agencies, schools, colleges and utilities.
I am pleased that your community is interested in participating in
this program. I hope that the breadth of activities underway in other
cities will inspire you to create community -based efforts to save energy
that are beneficial to your area.
The greatest resource we have is our people. Community Energy Councils
have demonstrated the strength and vision that create energy programs,
business opportunities, jobs, and a better quality of life for Minnesotans.
q cerely, y Pe ich
Governor
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
sos
I
01/12/87 [REVISOR ) DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 COMMUNITY ENERGY COUNCIL GRANTS
i 2 4160
.5100 OLYINZTIONS.
3 Subpart 1. Scope. For purposes of parts 4160.5200 to
4 4160.5900, the following terms have the meaning given them.
5 Subp. 2. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the
6 commissioner of the Department of Energy and Economic
7 Development.
8 Subp. 3. Community energy council. "Community energy
9 council" means a council, committee board, or other formed
, er bod for
Y
10 by a city or county, individually or through the exercise of
11 joint powers agreements, to address local energy issues.
12 Subp. 4. Department. "Department" means the Department of
13 Energy and Economic Development.
14 Subp. 5. Eligible applicant. "Eligible applicant" means a
15 Minnesota city or county.
16 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
17 11 SR 1311
18 4160.5200 PURPOSE.
19 Parts 4160.5100 to 4160.5900 establish the method by which
20 the department provides funds to Minnesota cities and counties
21 in support of community energy council activities, as authorized
22 by Minnesota Statutes, section 116J.381.
23 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
24 11 SR 1311
25 4160.5300 .5300 GRANT PROGRAM.
26 Subpart 1. Application schedule. After announcement by
27 the department in the State Register, the department shall
28 accept applications for community energy council grants from
29 cities and counties, individually, collectively, or through the
30 exercise of joint powers agreements. All available funds sFiall
31 be announced at the beginning g nninq of each rant Cycle. No applicant
9
Y PP
32 may apply for more than one grant per cycle. The department
33 shall consider for funding only applications received by the
34 deadline announced in the State Register.
1
01/12/87 (REVISOR ) DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 Subp. 2. Review process. The commissioner shall select
2 the members of a committee to assist the commissioner to review
3 and rank applications. The review committee shall score
4 applications according to criteria in part 4160.5500 and
5 transmit its recommendations to the commissioner. The
6 commissioner shall approve, disapprove, or return for further
7 consideration applications recommended by the committee. The
8 department must complete its review and inform applicants of its
9 decision within 45 days of the application deadline. Upon
10 approval by the commissioner, a grant agreement may be
11 negotiated with the department in accordance with part 4160.5800.
12 Subp. 3. Maximo- award amount. The maximum amount of a
13 community energy council grant to an individual applicant other
(� 14 than cities of the first class is S30,000 for the first year and
15 $ 1 . 5,000 for the second yea and requires at least a ten percent
nD� 16 local match. The maximum amount of a community energy council
17 grant to a joint application for the first year is $30,000 for
18 the first applicant and $24,000 for each additional applicant up
19 to a maximum of $80,000, and requires at least a ten percent
20 local match. The maximum amount of a community energy council
21 grant to a joint application for the second year is $15,000 for
22 the first applicant and $12,000 for each additional applicant up
23 to a maximum of $48,000, and requires at least a ten percent
24 local match.
25 Subp. 4. Cities of the first class. When the department
26 announces the availability of new grant funds in the State
27 Register, the department shall announce that a portion of the
28 funds is reserved to fund applications submitted by cities of
29 the first class. The portion reserved for applications
30 submitted by cities of the first class shall equal the
31 percentage of available funds equal to the percent of the
q P state
32 population constituted by cities of the first class. The
33 department shall calculate the percent of the population
34 constituted
b s
cities of the first class usin
Y
9 the most recent
35 population figures available from the Office of the State
36 Demographer or the United States Bureau of the Census, whichever
2
I
01/12/87 (REVISOR I DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 is most recent. If the review committee awards its application
2 an average score of at least 80 points according to the criteria
3 in part 4160.5500, a city of the first class will be eligible
4 for a grant amount equal to the percent of available funds that
5 equals the city's percentage of the state population.
6 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
7 11 SR 1311
8 4160.5400 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY ENERGY COUNCIL GRANT.
9 Subpart 1. Fora. Applications must be submitted in a form
10 prescribed by the department.
11 Subp. 2. Contents. Applications must contain the
12 following information:
13 A. Documentation of the existence of a community
14 energy council must include a copy of the resolution of the
15 governing body establishing a community energy council, and a
16 list of members appointed by the governing body to serve on the
17 community energy council, including the members' relevant
18 affiliations, if any.
19 B. Applicants shall include a work plan that explains
20 how the applicant intends to undertake program planning and
21 implementation during the grant period. Applicants shall
22 specify major tasks to be undertaken and a project schedule that
23 includes beginning and ending dates for each task. The expected
24 results or product of each task must be identified.
25 C. The budget must identify major expenditure
26 categories and amounts and the amount and source of the local
27 match.
28 D. Applicants shall submit a copy of the resolution
29 or resolutions, that authorize the submission of the application
30 to the department.
31 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
32 11 SR 1311
33 4160.5500 EVALUATION OF GRANT APPLICATION.
34 Subpart 1. Criteria. The review committee shall evaluate
35 grant applications according to the following criteria:
3
01/12/87 (REVISOR J DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 A. Community energy councils must include
2 representatives of labor, small business, volunteer
3 organizations, senior citizens, and low and moderate income
4 residents, and may include city and county officials, and other
5 interested parties.
6 B. A work plan will be evaluated to determine its
7 potential to reduce energy use and energy costs in the applicant
8 community. Positive indicators of this potential are:
9 (1) a work plan that implements one or more
10 eligible activities as listed in part 4160.5600, subpart 1,
11 during the grant period;
12 (2) a work plan that demonstrates how the
13 applicant will coordinate activities undertaken with community
14 energy council grant funds with activities of other energy
15 service providers, including cities and counties; or
16 (3) a work plan that indicates efforts that are
17 underway or planned to secure funds in addition to a community
18 energy council grant for project implementation.
19 C. Past or current experience in conducting
20 energy - related community programs will be considered by the
21 review committee as an indicator of the applicant's capability
22 in this area and commitment to energy programs.
23 D. A grant application must be clear, concise, and
24 complete.
25 Subp. 2. Point values for applications. The review
26 committee shall award points to each application as follows:
27 A. representation of community energy council
28 membership, up to a maximum of 35 points;
29 B. adequacy of applicant work plan, up to a maximum
30 of 40 points; " -
31 C. energy - related program experience, up to a maximum
32 of 15 points; and
33 D. clarity, conciseness, and completeness, up to a
34 maximum of ten points.
35 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
36 11 SR 1311
4
01/12/87 (REVISOR J OSN /MM AR1037ST
1 4160.5600 CLASSIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE GRANTEE
2 ACTIVITIES.
3 Subpart 1. Eligible activities. Planning, promotion,
4 coordination, and implementation of the following activities are
5 eligible for community energy council grants:
6 A. Residential energy conservation activities may
7 include energy audits, workshops, distribution of energy
8 conservation materials and information, and financing programs.
9 B. Rental energy conservation activities include
10 energy audits, workshops, distribution of energy conservation
11 materials and information, enforcement of rental energy
12 efficiency standards, and financing programs. Tenants and
13 rental property owners are eligible beneficiaries of rental
14 energy conservation activities.
15 C. Business energy conservation activities may
16 include meetings and workshops, energy audits, distribution of
17 energy conservation materials and information, and financing
18 programs.
19 D. Transportation energy conservation activities may
20 include car -care clinics, promotion of energy efficient
21 transportation modes, and traffic flow synchronization.
22 E. Community energy planning activities may include
23 development of community energy use and cost profiles and
24 estimates of energy conservation and alternative energy
25 potentials.
Z F. Local government energy conservation activities
27 may include energy use and cost accounting, fleet management,
28 procurement of energy efficient vehicles and equipment, and
29 recycling.
30 G. Energy efficient land use planning activities may
31 include developing and amending comprehensive plans and zoning
32 ordinances, subdivision regulations, and other land use controls
33 to facilitate energy efficient development and the use of
34 renewable energy resources.
35 H. Alternative energy activities may include projects
5
01/12/87 (REVISOR I DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 the objective of which is the substitution of alternative energy
2 sources for fossil fuels.
3 Subp. 2. Ineligible activities. The following activities
4 are ineligible for community energy council grants:
5 A. projects conducted outside a grantee's corporate
6 boundaries by the grantee alone; and
7 B. real property acquisition.
8 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
9 11 SR 1311
10 4160.5700 CLASSIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE GRANTEE
11 EXPENDITURES.
12 Subpart 1. Eligible grantee expenditures. The following
13 are eligible grantee expenditures:
14 A. salaries and wages;
15 B. fringe benefits;
16 C. in -state travel;
17 D. space rental and utilities;
18 E. rental and lease of equipment;
19 F. consumable supplies;
20 G. telephone;
21 H. postage;
2 2 I. printing and printed materials; and
2 3 J. insurance.
24 Subp. 2. Ineligible grantee expenditures. The following
25 are ineligible grantee expenditures:
2 6 A. out -of -state travel, unless specifically approved
27 in an agreement between the grantee and the department;
28 B. purchase of real property;
29 C. gurchase of equipment, except consumable supplies;
30 and
31 D. retroactive payment of grant funds for activities
32 undertaken prior to the effective date of the grant agreement.
33 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
34 11 SR 1311
35 416
0.5800 GRANT AGREEMENT.
6
01/12/87 (REVISOR I DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 Subpart 1. Contents. An agreement must specify the grant
2 amount and the duration of the grant. The agreement must
3 include assurance that the local share will be provided, that
4 the work program agreed upon will be carried out and that the
5 grantee will use all interest earned on grant funds for eligible
6 purposes consistent with the grant agreement. A grant agreement
7 based upon a joint application must be executed by the applicant
8 city or county that will be directly responsible for financial
9 management of the grant, and that will be responsible for the
10 required reports in part 4160.5800, subpart 4, and the records
11 required in part 4160.5800, subpart 5. Amendments and
12 extensions may only be made in writing and must be signed by all
13 parties.
14 Subp. 2. Funding period. Grants will be approved for a
15 period of up to one year, unless other terms are agreed to by
16 the commissioner. Grants will be approved for a second year if
17 the first year work plan has been completed or if the grantee
18 has made substantial progress towards completion of the first
19 year work plan, as determined by the commissioner.
20 Subp. 3. Disbursement schedule. Funds will be disbursed
21 according to the procedures contained in items A and H:
22 A. For grants equal to or less than $40,000, the
23 department shall disburse 80 percent of the grant money when it
24 receives an invoice of projected costs. The department shall
25 disburse the remaining 20 percent when the grantee work program
26 is complete and the department receives a satisfactory final
27 report.
28 H. For grants greater than $40,000, the department
29 shall disburse ten percent of the grant amount when it receives
30 an invoice requesting disbursement. Following the initial
31 disbursement, the department shall reimburse grantees quarterly
32 for actual expenses incurred during the preceding three months
33 when the grantee submits an invoice and a financial statement
34 documenting these expenses, until 90 percent of the grant amount
35 has been disbursed. The department shall disburse the remaining
36 ten percent when the grantee work program is complete and the
7
01/12/87 [REVISOR J DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 department receives a satisfactory final report.
2 Subp. 4. Required reports. The grantee shall submit to
3 the department on the first of each month a one to two page
4 report briefly stating the activities that have taken place
5 during the month. The grantee shall provide the department with
6 three copies of a final report and financial statement,
7 describing all activities that took place during the grant
8 period. The final report must summarize planning and
9 implementation steps in chronological order and identify all
10 parties involved during the grant period.
11 Subp. 5. Records. The grantee shall maintain financial
12 records according to generally recognized accounting methods for
13 a period of not less than three years from the date of the
14 execution of the contract of all transactions related to the
15 receipt and expenditure of grant money.
16 Subp. 6. Grant agreement deviations. Unless the grantee
17 demonstrates to the department that the grantee's circumstances
18 have changed since execution of the grant agreement to such an
19 extent that a deviation is necessary to complete the agreed upon
20 work program, no grant funds may be used to finance activities
21 by consultants or local staff,if the activities are not included
22 in the grant agreement. A grantee may not contract out all its
23 energy - related activities to consultants unless the grantee
24 demonstrates to the department that such contracting is
25 necessary to complete the work program.
26 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
27 11 SR 1311
28 4160.5900 GRANT CLOSE -OUT.
29 Subpart 1,, Evaluation. The department shall conduct an
30 evaluation of the final report and all the required reports and
31 financial documents within 60 days of their submission by the
32 grantee to the department. The evaluation shall assess:
33 A. whether the local share contributed was equal to
34 or greater than ten percent of the total cost of the agreed upon
35 work program;
8
01/12/87 (REVISOR 1 DSN /MM AR1037ST
1 B. whether the agreed upon work program was
2 completed; and
3 C. whether the governing body has formally reviewed
4 the completed final report.
5 Subp. 2. Review. Upon completion of a satisfactory
6 evaluation by the department, the department shall disburse the
7 remaining amount owed to the grant recipient. If the results of
8 the evaluation are unfavorable to the grantee and the grantee
9 does not agree with the findings of the evaluation, the grantee
10 may request a review by the commissioner.
11 MS s 116J.035 subd 2; 116J.381 subd 4
12 11 SR 1311
9
j
f
}
GOVERNOR'S COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
Governor Perpich is committed to a statewide community energy
program. Community Energy Councils are a key ingredient in an energy
strategy which is based on the ability of communities to design and
deliver their own energy conservation programs.
1. Community Energy Councils initiate projects which bring people
together to help themselves, their neighbors, local businesses,
and their communities.
2. Community Energy Councils devise solutions to local energy
problems. This work gives citizens a measure of control over
their energy situation.
3. Community Energy Councils play an important role in providing
local citizens with up -to -date information about energy and
economic development programs that can benefit the community.
4. Community Energy Councils work with municipal and investor -owned
gas and electric utilities to deliver effective conservation
programs.
To participate in the Governor's Community Energy Program, Community
Energy Councils should be established according to the following
criteria.
1. Community Energy Councils should include representatives from
small business, low /moderate income groups, labor, volunteer
organizations and seniors. In addition, Councils are urged to
include representatives from local gas and electric utilities,
people in the energy business, leaders of service organizations,
clergy, and members of the financial community.
2. The Council must be formally created by Resolution of the City
Council or County Board.
3. The active and visible support of the Mayor, City Council, and
the City Manager are critical to the success of Community Energy
Councils. This support should include some local government
representation on the Council.
i
COMMUNITY ENERGY COUNCIL PROJECTS: A SAMPLER
1. The Home Energy Check -up
2. Seniors Helping Seniors
3. Neighborhood Energy Workshops
4. Working with Gas and Electric Utilities
5. Energy Management for Small Business
6. Residential Shared Savings
7. Transportation Energy Conservation Programs
8. Other Project Ideas
Alternative Energy Promotion
Community Development Projects
Local Government Energy Conservation
School Energy Conservation Loan Program
Community Energy Planning
Energy- Efficient Land Use Planning
The following pages contain descriptive information for a sampling of
projects which are being offered by various Community Energy Councils
in Minnesota. The list is not exhaustive -- the range of successful
projects is limited only by the imagination of communities responding
to their energy needs. Program staff is available to assist in
designing and delivering Community Energy Council projects.
For further information and assistance, contact:
Mark Schoenbaum
Governor's Community Energy Program
(612) 297 -3602
This material was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of
Energy, Grant No. DE- FG02- 80CS60014. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DOE.
1. THE HOME ENERGY CHECK -UP
WHAT IS IT
The Home Energy Check -up project is designed to be sponsored by a
Community Energy Council and a participating utility. The actual
"work" is performed by local personnel and consists of a visit with a
homeowner or renter with four goals:
1. A quick, practical energy audit,
2. Installation of basic infiltration measures with hands -on
instruction about weatherization techniques and needs,
3. A discussion about sensible conservation investments and
available funding sources, and
4. An opportunity for follow -up to encourage the resident to
undertake further ask questions, etc.
BENEFITS
The Home Energy Check -up combines technical information and actual
weatherization activities into a visit that is tailored to the
homeowners' or renters' needs. The program is designed so that the
information that is presented is suited to the participant's physical
and financial capabilities. At a minimum, every visit will
effectively highlight three or four conservation priorities and get
some materials correctly installed in the home. This approach
insures that some level of energy savings will accrue regardless of
the ability of the resident to undertake further activities.
HOW TO GET STARTED
Community Energy Program staff can provide complete manuals for this
as
program well as the necessary ocumentation to complete the
Y P
residential audits. For more information, contact Mark Schoenbaum at
(612) 297 -3602.
{
2. SENIORS HELPING SENIORS
WHAT IS IT?
The "Seniors Helping Seniors Energy Project" makes use of active
senior citizens to educate seniors on how to use energy more
efficiently in the home while still maintaining adequate comfort
levels. The following services are offered during the home
visit depending on the needs and wants of the program
participant:
o installation of low cost weatherization materials to reduce
air leaks
and
o consultation on one or more of the following topics:
- preventing hypothermia,
- energy saving lifestyle changes,
- energy audit opportunities,
- energy financing opportunities,
-home safety,* and
-crime prevention *.
The home visit is made by a senior citizen who has received
appropriate training. The senior citizen staff can either work
individually or as a team with another senior citizen.
BENEFITS
This program involves active seniors in a useful community
service, and it is likely to generate high participation by
using seniors' peers to help alleviate fears of inviting a
stranger into the home. A major benefit is that senior citizens
who participate in the program will gain energy savings and
improved comfort levels in their homes. Those participants who
make additional energy improvements will have even greater
savings.
HOW TO GET STARTED?
Contact Susan Moore with Community Services at the Department of
Energy and Economic Development at 612 - 296 -1848 for additional
information on this project.
*B combining an energy-related e w'
Y g gy ed servic with other topics of
interest for this target audience, program participation and
community support might be expanded.
3. NEIGHBORHOOD ENERGY WORKSHOP PROGRAM
WHAT IS IT?
Neighborhood Energy Workshops (NEW) are a block -by- block,
neighborhood -by- neighborhood project to (1) educate residents about
basic home energy conservation opportunities, (2) explain proper
weatherization techniques, (3) provide free weatherization materials
for participants to install, and (4) promote home energy audits.
BENEFITS
A typical Minnesota home contains 100 or more holes or air leaks
which allow heated air to escape to the outdoors. NEW is designed to
help residents discover and plug the leaks in their own homes and
apartments. The benefits are lower heating and cooling bills and
increased home comfort.
HOW IT WORKS
Each participating household:
• is invited to a comprehensive workshop,
• receives free weatherization materials, free training, and free
information,
o is visited at home by weatherization assistants to see if they
are having problems in installing their kits or have any
questions,
• is encouraged to sign -up for a home energy audit.
The NEW program is successful because:
• it is promoted through one -on -one personal contact in each
neighborhood using existing volunteers and networks,
• it combines a slide presentation, demonstration models and
factsheets with hands -on activities in the home.
HOW TO GET STARTED
The Community Energy Program can provide your community with a NEW
program kit and on -site assistance. Each Community Energy Council is
encouraged to augment the program as necessary to better fit local
needs. The 30,000 households in Minneapolis that have participated
in the program have significantly reduced their energy use by
following the low -cost measures recommended at the neighborhood
workshops.
Similar savings can occur in your community as well. Call Susan
Moore, Community Energy Coordinator, at 612- 296 -1848 if you are
interested in receiving the NEW program kit or an on -site visit.
1
4. WORKING WITH GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES
WHAT IS IT?
In many Minnesota communities, utilities are working with Community
Energy Councils to deliver energy conservation projects. In Mankato
and North Mankato, NSP and Minnegasco purchase energy conservation
materials which are distributed at Neighborhood Energy Workshops..
sponsored by the cities' Energy Councils. Peoples Natural Gas Co. is
sponsoring a program to tighten -up the homes of low- income seniors in
Rochester. In Aurora and Duluth, Minnesota Power is paying the costs
of home energy audits performed by local staff. Inter City Gas
provided weatherization materials for free distribution in Aurora.
NSP is helping with Council projects in Hastings, Red Wing, Winona,
Richfield, South St. Paul, and other communities. In New Ulm,
Brainerd, Benson, Fosston, and Hawley, municipal electric utilities
are assisting Community Energy Council programs.
BENEFITS
Energy conservation keeps energy dollars in the local economy. Joint
conservation projects with the utility and the Community Energy
Council can be more beneficial than separate efforts by each group.
Utilities can lend technical and financial support to a joint project
that the Community Energy Council cannot not provide on its own.
HOW TO GET STARTED
• Contact local utility representatives. The first step is to get
to know the utility staff at the nearest branch office. Find out
about current utility energy conservation programs. You may want
to invite utility representatives to serve on your Council.
• Develop a proposal for a joint project with the utility. After
learning what the utility already does, develop a proposal that
makes sense for your community and the utility.
For more information, Contact Mark Schoenbaum at (612) 297 -3602.
5. ENERGY MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS FOR SMALL BUSINESS
WHAT IS IT?
An energy management program is an excellent opportunity for small
businesses to work together with their Chamber of Commerce or local
business association to save energy and money.
The Community Energy Council can be active in coordinating a group of
small businesses, providing energy information, sponsoring workshops,
arranging for energy audits, and exploring financing opportunities.
BENEFITS
Local businesses benefit from the reduced energy bills that result
from implementing conservation measures. A cooperative effort will
give businesses more leverage to acquire the resources they need. A
Chamber of Commerce, business association, or local bank can provide
a valuable service for its members resulting in lower energy costs
for all. Banks can benefit from increased demand for loans for
energy conservation capital improvements. Saving energy dollars
improves the financial health of local businesses and, in turn, the
local economy.
HOW TO GET STARTED
We can help a Community Energy Council sponsor programs that help
local businesses.
• An Energy Council can conduct meetings and workshops for local
businesses. Topics include developing a business conservation
campaign, offering simple, walk - through audits, explaining
,utility bills and demand charges, illustrating energy
recordkeeping, and promoting mainstreet weatherization efforts.
Energy management workshops can be easily tailored for
presentation at regular meetings of Lions, Rotary, Jaycees, etc.
• As a group, local businesses can contract for less expensive
energy audits. The activities noted above will help determine
what sort of audit program makes sense.
If your community is interested in pursuing a small business energy
project and want help getting it started, contact Tom Helgesen at
(612) 296 -8900.
6. RESIDENTIAL SHARED SAVINGS PROGRAM
WHAT IS IT?
Shared Savings is a way to finance energy conservation improvements
in homes in which the resident is not required to provide any
up -front capital. The conservation investment is paid for with a
portion of the energy saving that occurs; the remainder of the
savings stays with the homeowner.
Shared Savings has been used successfully for years to finance energy
conservation measures in office buildings, factories, hospitals,
manufacturing facilities, and large apartment complexes. More
recently, it has been utilized in smaller multi- family units.
Presently, DEED is working to make Shared Savings programs available
to homeowners.
BENEFITS
Single family Shared Savings projects can be initiated by the local
unit of government or the Community Energy Council. Shared Savings
provides homeowners with the incentive and means to undertake energy
conservation activities. The incentive for the homeowner is an
immediate reduction in the annual energy costs of the home.
There are a number of variations to the single family shared savings
program; but all share the following characteristics:
• Annual fuel costs are immediately reduced,
• No cash investment is required on the part of the homeowner,
• The term of the Shared Savings agreement is usually 5 years,
• The homeowner is not required to pay for the conservation
investment if the projected savings are not achieved, and
• The program can be offered to all homeowners regardless of
income.
HOW TO GET STARTED
For more information on Shared Savings, contact Lowell Johnson at
(612) 297 -1295.
7. Transportation Energy Conservation Programs
WHAT IS IT?
The transportation energy conservation program consists of one or
more projects sponsored by a Community Energy Council in a
coordinated community wide campaign to save transportation energy.
Such a campaign could include some or all of the following
activities:
• Promotion of public transit and /or carpooling
• Car care (tune -up) clinics
• Energy efficient driver education programs
• Bike and /or pedestrian travel promotions
• Traffic flow synchronization
• Designation and promotion of park and ride lots
BENEFITS
A transportation energy conservation program cam impact all sectors
of the community. Because everyone uses some form of transportation
everyone stands to benefit from the implementation of a
transportation energy program.
Also, because transportation energy is usually the highest energy use
sector for a particular community, a transportation energy
conservation program has the potential to return a high degree of
savings to the community and it's residents..
HOW TO GET STARTED
Contact Lowell Johnson with the Community Energy Technical Assistance
unit of DEED at (612) 297 -1295.
8. OTHER PROJECT IDEAS
Here's a brief description of some community energy projects that
your Community Energy Council may want to explore. DEED will be
happy to provide whatever additional information or assistance
you need.
FINANCING ENERGY RELATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Community development projects that recognize the benefits of energy
efficiency can be successful in many communities. Energy
conservation and renewables can be included in housing
rehabilitation, downtown redevelopment, and new housing projects.
Small Cities Development Grants (SCDG) can be used to finance a wide
range of community energy investments and programs.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENERGY CONSERVATION
How much of your city's or county's budget goes for energy costs? In
many communities, energy costs are the second largest item after
salaries. A local government energy conservation effort can save
public dollars and provide a model for the whole community. Possible
projects include energy accounting, fleet management, procurement of
energy efficient vehicles and equipment, energy udits, capital
gY P
energy improvements, gY P and more. The dollar value of energy savings
s g
could support an energy staff person.
PUBLIC SCHOOL ENERGY CONSERVATION LOAN PROGRAM
The public school loan program provides front -end capital to school
districts for energy conservation building improvements. The loans
can be repaid using existing local levy authority. Money is also
available to help pay for building audits for schools that have not
been audited and to revise audits for previously audited buildings.
Since local taxpayers ultimately pay their schools' fuel bills,
energy savings benefit the entire community. Reduced energy costs
mean that more dollars are available in the operating budget for
direct educational services. Reducing energy costs may save a
special program or activity.
Community Energy Councils can help encourage community support for
school conservation projects. Schools can also be included in
planning for any community -wide energy project.
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROMOTION
Renewable and alternative energy resources are being successfully
utilized by many Minnesota residents and businesses. Examples of
these energy ever technologies are found in corner of the state and
g Y
include: solar and wind energy systems, fiber fuel heating systems
g Y ►
r
Y g Y
and electric generation facilities, waste to energy systems,
gasification plants, cogeneration facilities, and the like.
An alternative energy promotion campaign can help get this message
across. Community Energy Councils can distribute information,
organize tours, and design programs to promote and attract
alternative energy resources to their communities.
COMMUNITY ENERGY PLANNING
Community energy planning determines how much money is spent in your
community on energy, analyzes where it is spent, and estimates the
potential benefits of energy conservation and renewable energy
sources to the local economy. DEED can provide a computer simulation
which utilizes local data to provide this information as well as
projections of energy expenditures in future years under differing
conservation efforts. These results can help a Council determine
energy priorities and goals.
i
ENERGY- EFFICIENT LAND USE PLANNING
Land use planning and zoning decisions determine development patterns
that ultimately influence a community's energy consumption. DEED can
help your community explore planning and zoning options that
Y p p 9 g P
encourage earth - sheltered, solar, and wind utilization.
COMMMITY ENERGY CODICIL GRANTS
COMMUNITY PROGRAM SUMMARIES
Community,
Grant Award Program Summary
- FISCAL YEAR 1988, CYCLE 1 -
Brainerd Brainerd plans a two -year, $509,400 program with funds
$45,000 from Minnegasco, the city and its municipal utility, and
the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency via the local credit
union, the Brainerd Savings and Loan, and three local
banks. The program will provide 110 Home Energy
Check -ups, 50 commercial energy consultations, and connect
residents and businesses with suitable financing sources
for conservation improvements.
Lester Prairie Lester Prairie plans a two -year, $117,115 program with
$28,800 funds from the city, NSP, Minnegasco, the Chamber of
Commerce, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency via Farmers
State Bank, and the CAP. The program will provide 300
Home Energy Check -ups, ten promotional blower door leak
detection demonstrations, and energy consultations to 20
churches and businesses and to the city's buildings. The
city will provide a commuter bulletin board and operate a
ride -share program featuring community "energy bucks" as
an incentive. The program will promote walking and
bicycling for in -city travel, and produce energy
conservation programs for the cable television system.
1
- FISCAL YEAR 1987, CYCLE 3 -
Benson Benson plans a two -year, $164,100 program to provide 50
$45,000 commercial energy consultations, 25 extended consultations
to businesses, 50 Home Energy Check -ups, and 50 extended
home consultations. The city will assist participants to
secure loans for needed improvements from a city loan fund
and local banks. The city will promote increased
ridership of the local bus system, establish an energy
library, and offer community education seminars to
residents and businesses.
Cannon Falls Cannon Falls plans a two -year, $161,100 program with funds
$33,500 from NSP, Peoples Natural Gas and the city. The program
will deliver 250 "Residential Energy Retrofits," which
combine an energy consultation and a house doctor visit,
for older homes in Cannon Falls. One hundred newer homes
will be scheduled for home energy consultations and an
optional "blower door" air leak test. The city expects 35
homeowners to take out Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
energy loans. Forty businesses will receive walk- through
energy consultations.
Carver County Carver County plans to conduct 1,000 Home Energy Check -ups
$48,000 over two years in eleven municipalities. The $386,200
program is supported by the county, NSP, Minnegasco and
the participating cities. Participants will be assisted
to secure suitable financing from county programs to
undertake energy improvements.
Circle Pines The city plans a two -year, $125,627 program with funds
$28,586 from Circle Pines utilities, the city, Northern Natural
Gas, and Community Development Block Grant funds. The
program will offer 40 -60 commercial energy consultations,
160 residential energy consultations, and twelve home
energy loans. The city will undertake a landscaping /tree
planting program with an energy conservation emphasis,
offer a car care clinic, and improve the efficiency and
operation of the city's vehicle fleet.
Duluth Duluth plans a two -year, $6,530,130 program with funds
$60,160 from city bonds, MHFA, the Water & Gas Department, and
Minnesota Power. The effort centers around a $5 million
city loan fund, with 400 single family and 250
multi - family loans expected during the program. The
Insulate Duluth Project will assist consumers to identify
needed improvements, hire trained contractors, and use
the loan program. Insulate Duluth will train contractors
in standard techniques and conduct post completion
inspections to insure quality control. An Infiltration
Reduction Program will serve 120 households, 80 of which
will receive $100 subsidies based on income. An Energy
Information and Loan Hotline will be the primary
clearinghouse for all Duluth energy programs.
Twenty -seven training seminars will be held for
participants doing their own weatherization work.
2
Minneapolis Minneapolis plans a 30- month, $1,230,922 program with
$255,922 support from Minne asco t '
pp g he city's Y 9Y loan funds
and the City Inspections Department. Grant funds will
support the administration each year of 400 homeowner
insulation installations 50 homeowner House Doc
for J 'obs
750 rental insulation installations, 525 rental House
Doctor jobs, 900 energy loans, 175 multi - family heating
system modifications, 100 multi - family House Dotor jobs,
services to 650 participants in the city's low- income
energy program, and enforcement of the city's rental
energy efficiency standards.
Moorhead Moorhead plans a one -year, $243,850 program with support
$30,000 from the city, the municipal utility, NSP, Clay Wilkin
Opportunity Council, and participant fees. The program
will offer ten workshops on simple weatherization
techniques, conduct
q 350 home energy consultations gy ti ns and
radon tests, and make referrals to appropriate financial
assistance.
New Hope New Hope plans a two -year, $173,638 program with support
$39,468 from the city, NSP, Minnegasco and Northwest Cable TV.
The program will conduct 1,000 home energy consultations,
weatherize seven ub
p ltc housing units, broadcast 18 cable
TV programs on energy topics, and promote Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency and Community Development Block
Grant energy loans.
New Ulm New Ulm plans a two -year, $254,645 program funded by the
$45,000 public utility, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
State Bank and Trust, and MN Valley Action Council. The
will
program rovide 400 commercial energy analyses, P 9Y Y ten
small business loans, and installation and monitoring
assistance. A multi-family component will Inform tenants
and landlords of rental energy standards, provide ten
multi - family energy loans, and pursue local adoption of
state rental energy standards. Six hundred fifty
residential energy consultations will be provided.
Plymouth Ym The two cities lam a two-year, 107 00
P y $ 4 program
and supported by West Hennepin Human Services Council, the
St. Louis Park cities, NSP and Community Development Block Grant and
$49,582.04 Minnesota Housing Finance Agency rehab loans and grants.
The program will conduct 250 Home Energy Check -ups and
five home energy workshops.
Polk County Central Erskine, Fertile, Mentor and Winger plan a joint two -year
Cities program totalling 329,605, supported b Fertile's
9 PP Y
$106,054 Community Development Block Grant program, Otter Tail
Power Co., Inter- County Community Council and Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency loans through the Multi- County
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The program will
provide 400 Home Energy Check -ups and 40 business energy
consultations.
. 4
Red Lake Falls Red Lake Falls plans a two - year, $426,200 program with
$45,000 support from the city, Red Lake County State Bank
Conventional and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency loans,
Homark Company, Inter - County Community Council,
Multi- County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, and
Otter Tail Power. The program will perform 200
residential energy consultations, 15 commercial energy
analyses and six government building inspections. The
city has established a revolving loan fund for
residential and commercial energy improvements and will
assist participants in locating the appropriate financing
source. The city will investigate conservation
strategies for mobile homes and analyze the feasibility
of replacing its street lights with more efficient
models.
Red Wing Red Wing plans a two -year, $116,300 program with support
$45,000 from the city and NSP. The program will include three
Neighborhood Energy Workshops, 126 home energy
consultations, 200 House Doctor visits, and an evaluation
of its previous energy workshop program. The city will
assist participants to secure weatherization financing
from NSP or the Red Wing Housing and Redevelopment
Authority's Rental Rehab Loan Program. Red Wing will
work with the St. Paul Energy Resource Center on a
demonstration commercial shared savings program,
expecting six businesses to finance energy improvements.
Richfield Richfield plans a two - year, $467,500 program with support
$45,000 from the city, NSP, Minnegasco, Community Development
Block Grant funds, and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
loans. The program will provide 550 Home Energy
Check -ups, 88 low- income House Doctor visits, 30 -60
multi - family consultations, and anticipates 50 Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency loans. The city's Home Energy
Check -ups include air leak tests and a special emphasis
on electricity conservation. Richfield will conduct t an
infra -red curve o the 't
f ci and p romote Y Y� p NSP 's
commercial energy services.
Robbinsdale, The three cities plan a two -year, $65,266 program with
Maple Grove and support from West Hennepin Human Services Council, the
Medina cities, NSP, and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and
$25,994 Community Development Block Grant rehab loans and
grants. The program will provide 175 Home Energy
Check -ups, five Home Energy Workshops, and assist
participants to secure suitable financing.
Rochester Rochester plans a two -year, $83,650 program with support
$40,000 from Peoples Natural Gas, Hamilton Realty, Rochester
Public Utilities and Parks Department, the Pollution
Control Agency, and local Amoco dealers. The program
will conduct 100 Home Energy Check -ups, 100 Senior
Citizen House Doctor visits, two car care clinics, 15
commercial consultations and continue a municipal
operations energy program that has begun to achieve
significant savings in city buildings.
5
Sacred Heart The city plans a two -year, $58,116 program supported by
$29,716 NSP to provide 280 home energy consultations and 20
business energy consultations. The city plans to provide
credits for the purchase and installation of materials.
St. Cloud St. Cloud plans a two -year, $1,426,540 program with funds
$45,000 from HUD's Public Housing Improvement Program, Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency loans via First American Bank and
the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Development Block Grants, and NSP. The program
will conduct 740 Home Energy Check -ups, four educational
sessions and promote all available energy conservation
loans and grants. The program will also conduct energy
inspections of 305 public housing units contained in
three highrises and 60 public housing units comprised of
townhouses and single family dwellings. The city will
use $986,000 of HUD funds to make the recommended
improvements to the public housing units.
St. Louis County St. Louis County plans a two -year, $199,700 program with
$45,000 support from the county, Arrowhead Economic Opportunity
Agency, and IRRRB's Small Business Loan fund. The
program will serve the energy conservation needs of
resorts in the county by providing resort owners 70 -80
energy consultations, financing to make recommended
improvements, starter samples of energy conservation
materials to 101 resorts, informational mailings and a
video tape on resort energy conservation.
St. Paul St. Paul plans a two -year $4,482,176 ro ram to operate
P 9 P
$159,276 "Project Insulate." The program will reach 1,600
properties with workshops, energy consultations,
low- interest financing, guaranteed contracters at reduced
prices, and infrared quality control inspections of
completed work. Marketing services will be offered to
homeowners, renters, and landlords.
Shakopee Shakopee plans a one -year, $30,500 program with support
$15,000 from the city, Minnegasco, and the municipal utility.
The program will conduct 175 Home Energy Check -ups and
distribute conservation information to all households.
The program will include three demonstration projects:
one to demonstrate the viability of a recycling program
for apartment buildings, one to explore the feasibility
of expanding the Dial -A -Ride service to Saturdays, and
one to test a "reverse van pool" program. The reverse
van pool will bring workers from other locations to work
at Shakopee employers.
6
South St. Paul South St. Paul plans a two -year, $148,500 program with
$45,000 support from the city, the school district, the Bremer
Foundation, and NSP. The program will conduct 1,120 Home
Energy Check -ups. The program will be focused on low-
and fixed - income residents and the elderly. A blower
door air leakage test will be available to residents.
Spring Lake Park Spring Lake Park plans a two -year, $85,980 program with
$24,400 support from the city, NSP, Anoka County, North Central
Public Service Company and the Metropolitan Council. The
city plans to conduct 220 Home Energy Check -ups and 75
Business Quick Check energy consultations. The city will
use telemarketing to promote these programs in addition
to other marketing strategies. The city will promote
biking, walking, Minnesota Rideshare and Park and Ride
facilities, the local recycling program, and composting.
Thief River Falls Thief River Falls plans a two -year, $513,980 program with
$45,000 support from the city, the municipal utility, Northern
State Bank, and Inter - County Community Council. The
program will provide loans for the replacement of 350
electric water heaters with high efficiency models,
provide incentives for the difference in purchase price
between the cost of a high efficiency water heater and an
average efficiency water heater, install load control
devices on 700 electric water heaters, and conduct 1,000
Home Energy Check -ups.
. Washington County Washington County plans a $384,390 program with support
$78,320 from Ramsey Action Program's low income energy programs,
NSP, Minnegasco, and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
Solar Bank fund. The county will contract with Ramsey
Action Program to coordinate energy services in the
participating cities and throughout the balance of the
county. The program will provide ten energy seminars, 33
public building inspections, concentrated energy services
to 15 low- income households, 13 community development
related rehabs in Newport, and conduct 350 Home Energy
Check -ups.
West Concord West Concord plans a two -year, $301,683 program with
$19,373 support from the city, Peoples Natural Gas, NSP, and
Farmers State Bank. The program will provide 160 Home
Energy Check -ups, 40 senior citizen energy conservation
visits, 15 commercial energy consultations, and encourage
local schools to make use of energy curricula. The city
will use grant funds to reduce the interest rate on bank
loans for residents and businesses.
7
Willmar Willmar plans a two -year, $1,481,125 program with funds
$45,000 from the city, MHFA, the municipal utility, Minnegasco,
and the Small Cities Development program. The city will
inspect and rehab 45 commercial and mixed use buildings,
conduct 650 Home Energy Check -ups and other energy
consultations, produce ten half -hour videos for cable TV,
establish an energy library and office, conduct 50 blower
door tests, and conduct an ad campaign for its shared
ride taxi service.
- FISCAL YEAR 1987, CYCLE 2 -
Benson Benson will conduct a $17,050 program with funds from the
$6,000 city and Minnegasco. The city will begin energy
consultations for small businesses, conduct an additional
50 Home Energy Check -ups, and invest in energy
improvements in city operations.
Bloomington Bloomington will conduct a $517,160 program funded by
$15,000 Minnegasco, the city and MHFA. The city will conduct 100
"House Doctor" visits for low- and moderate- income
households. The city will develop a pilot energy
conservation loan program for owners of rental property
and also market loan programs to homeowners. Twenty -six
energy conservation tapes will be broadcast over the
city's cable TV system.
Brainerd Brainerd plans a $12,500 program to begin preparation of a
$9,600 commercial energy program. The city will develop a pilot
program with several businesses, and contact commercial
customers throughout the community to introduce the
program citywide.
Eden Valley Eden Valley plans a $75,000 program with funds from the
$15,000 city and Eden Valley State Bank. This effort will provide
and install weatherization kits for 44 homes. The city
will also establish a revolving loan fund for energy
improvements for homes and businesses.
Fillmore County Fillmore County will offer a $33,145 program with funds
$15,000 from the county, Tri- County Electric Co -op, and Peoples
Natural Gas. The County will conduct 300 Home Energy
Check -ups and 15 commercial energy consultations in the
Preston and Fountain areas, and promote recycling and
composting country -wide.
8
Fridley The City will conduct a $63,000 program with funds from
$15,000 the city, Anoka County, the Metropolitan Council and
MHFA. The city will focus on rental energy conservation,
recycling, rideshare, and energy education.
Fulda Fulda will offer a $5,000 program to encourage commuting
$3,500 workers to carpool to work.
Hastings The city will conduct 440 Home Energy Check -ups and 24
$15,000 House Doctor visits. The $71,300 program is supported by
the city, Minnegasco and NSP.
Lake Park Lake Park plans a $48,890 program to conduct 125 Home
$15,000 Energy Check -ups serving homeowners and a trailer park, a
commercial energy management,project, and load management
through dual -fuel promotion. Funds will come from the
city, MHFA and Mahube Community Council.
Little Falls Little Falls will offer a $61,760 program supported by the
$15,000 city, Minnegasco, and Minnesota Power. Home Energy
Check -ups will be provided to 500 homes, carpooling will
be promoted in cooperation with major employers, and
planning will begin to design a commercial energy
conservation program.
Mankato /North Mankato and North Mankato will offer consultations to
Mankato small businesses, promote use of the local bus system,
$19,270 produce and broadcast ten energy - related cable TV
programs, address the need for energy improvements in city
operations, initiate a recycling program, and sponsor an
Energy Week promotion. The $26,770 program is supported
by the cities, NSP, Minnegasco, Frost -Benco Electric
Co -op, Blue Earth County, and School District 77.
Richfield Richfield will offer a $174,260 program to conduct 180
$15,000 energy consultations, develop an audit that focuses on
electricity conservation, provide House Doctor and
follow -up assistance to low- income residents, and fund 36
major weatherization jobs through city and MHFA rehab
programs.
Robbinsdale, Robbinsdale, Maple Grove and Medina will conduct a $83,078
Maple Grove, and program to provide House Doctor visits to low- income
Medina residents in the three communities. The program will also
$18,578 conduct a small business energy management workshop. The
program is supported by the cities, Minnegasco, and West
Hennepin Human Services Planning Board.
Rochester Rochester will conduct a $26,290 program supported by the
$8,500 city, Peoples Natural Gas, Rochester AVTI, the Pollution
Control Agency, and several local donors. The program
will offer a Seniors Helping Seniors Program, home energy
consultations, car efficiency clinics, and a municipal
government energy program.
9
Spring Lake Park Spring Lake Park will offer Home Energy Check -ups, a
$9,000 recycling and composting program, rideshare, and the
promotion of bicycle and pedestrian travel. The $37,620
program is supported by the city, NSP, North Central
Public Service Company, Anoka County, the Metropolitan
Council and Minnesota Rideshare.
South St. Paul South St. Paul will perform 560 Home Energy Check -ups,
$15,000 promoting the program to the elderly, handicapped,
low- income and working poor of the community. The $63,750
program is funded by the city and NSP.
- FISCAL YEAR 1987, CYCLE 1 -
Zumbrota Zumbrota is conducting a $26,920 program to install
$15,000 weatherization materials in the homes of 130 senior
citizen, handicapped and low /moderate income families.
Energy consultations will also be provided to 125
households and the city will establish an energy office to
serve as a single source of information for Zumbrota
residents. Funds have been secured from the city, Peoples
Natural Gas and NSP.
Plymouth, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, and Tonka Bay are providing a
St. Louis Park, $79,480 program to serve 150 low- and moderate - income
Tonka Bay households with "House Doctor" visits. During the home
$15,000 visit a qualified technician installs materials to reduce
heat leaks. The cities will also hold an energy
management workshop for 125 local merchants.
Contributions have been secured from the West Hennepin
Human Services Council and Minnegasco.
Hutchinson Hutchinson is operating a $79,420 small- business energy
$15,000 program with funds from the city, Hutchinson Utilities,
and service fees. Workshops, consultations, walk- through
consultations, in -depth engineering consultations, and'
loans will be provided to 150 businesses. The city
proposes to establish a business energy conservation loan
fund using available balances in the city's tax increment
fund.
Lancaster Lancaster plans a $35,440 program with funds from the
$15,000 city, the school district, Land -O -Lakes Propane, and
Ottertail Power. Lancaster will:
1. provide Home Energy Check -ups and furnace inspections
to 150 homes,
2. provide consultations and energy consultations to 25
businesses,
3. convert street lights to energy efficient models and
make energy efficiency improvements in all city
operations,
4. implement energy improvements in school buildings and
promote the community energy program through the
schools, and
5 -
conduct workshops in wood burning safety.
10
Wolverton Wolverton is conducting a $20,840 program with funds from
$15,000 the community and NSP. The program features the
construction of a new energy efficient fire hall as a
focus for a community energy program. Energy
consultations will be provided to businesses, workshops on
super- insulation, low -cost conservation techniques and
window treatments will be offered and an open house will
be held when the fire hall is completed to demonstrate its
energy efficiency features. The city will develop a
community energy profile and energy plan with assistance
from Moorhead State University.
Houston Houston plans a $58,220 program with funds from the city,
$15,000 Peoples Natural Gas and Tri- County Electric Coop. The
program will inspect each furnace in the community and
provide an energy consultation to every residence and
selected businesses. The program will conduct
neighborhood energy workshops, distribute weatherization
materials, and promote electric load management. Energy
education curriculum will be added to 5th, 6th, 11th, and
12th grade classes, and a municipal energy plan will be
developed.
Eden Prairie Eden Prairie will operate an $8,700 project to improve the
$7,000 Eden Prairie rideshare program to serve at least 800
commuters. The program will be targeted to major
employers and marketing will be expanded. The program is
partially funded and operated by the Chamber of Commerce.
New Germany New Germany will conduct an $84,549 program with funds
$15,000 from NSP, Carver County, MHFA, and Farmers Home. The
program will provide energy consultations and
weatherization kits to 94 low- and moderate - income
homeowners and renters. The program will match each
household with an appropriate financing source for major
weatherization improvements.
St. Louis County St. Louis County will begin a $39,853 program with funds
$15,000 from Arrowhead Economic Opportunity Agency and its Rental
Rehab Loan Program. The county will:
I. provide at least 30 multi - family building energy
consultations, each including feasibility analysis for
converting to wood pellets;
2. inform at least 400 residential rental property owners
of current conservation financing programs and the
energy efficiency standards for rental units;
3. document and assess the need for a public /private
partnership to address the need for conservation
improvements in the multi - family sector;
4. develop an approach to better enforce the rental
energy efficiency standards in St. Louis County; and
5. develop at least one new multi - family conservation
financing program.
11
- FISCAL YEAR 1986 -
Circle Pines Circle Pines is offering a $28,000 program with $11,500
$15,000 coming from their municipal utility. Circle Pines is
providing residential consultations to 225 homes,
providing outreach to low- income and elderly residents,
and promoting local recycling projects and bus ridership.
Chisago - Isanti These two counties delivered a comprehensive $61,200
$27,000 program consisting of:
1. 11 residential energy workshops,
2. Commercial energy workshops,
3. the inclusion of comprehensive energy conservation
activities in CDBG applications from the region, and
4. the design of a shared savings program.
This joint Energy Council has financial support from three
investor -owned utilities, two electric co -ops, three LPG
dealers, and one fuel oil jobber.
Brainerd
Brainerd is conducting a $71,500 program with substantial
$15,000 support from Minnegasco and the municipal electric
utility. Brainerd will:
1. provide home energy check -ups to 500 residents with
hands -on instruction and the installation of
weatherization kits,
2. organize a car care clinic for 100 vehicles,
3. organize a commercial energy workshop for 100 main
street merchants, and
4. develop an energy survey to gather energy data to
support future program development.
Hawley Hawley conducted a $23,750 program with funding from the
$15,000 municipal electric utility and the Northern Municipal
Power Agency. Hawley is offering:
1. 150 residential consultations,
2. 25 commercial consultations,
3. a workshop for mobile home residents with free
weatherization materials, and
4. an incentive and promotion program to finance dual
fuel conversions with a shared savings approach.
Fosston Fosston designed a $168,000 program using Small Cities
$15,000 Development Grant funds and support from the municipal
electric utility, the Northern Municipal Power Agency, and
the Inter - County Community Council. Fosston:
1. conducted 200 residential consultations,
2. conducted 50 commercial consultations,
3. provided dual -fuel incentives for 20 all electric
homes, and
4. provided low- interest energy loans to 30 property
owners.
12
Benson Benson is conducting a $47,000 program with funding from
$15,000 the city, the municipal electric utility and Minnegasco.
Benson will provide a "Home Energy Check -upu to 375
residents. The Check -up includes:
1. a practical energy audit,
2. installation of free weatherization materials,
3. hands -on weatherization instruction,
4 a consultation about conservation priorities, and
5, client follow -up.
One hundred of the participants will be low- income and /or
elderly clients who will receive additional weatherization
assistance and materials.
Preston Preston conducted a $33,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 city and Peoples Natural Gas. Preston:
1. provided consultations, kits, instruction and
follow -up to 300 households; and
2. established a curbside recycling program with 300
participating households.
Spring Lake Park This community designed a $60,500 program with funding
$15,000 from NSP and the North Central Public Service Co.
Projects included:
1. neighborhood energy workshops for 500 residents,
2. energy consultations for 300 residents,
3. rideshare promotion, and
4. a pilot recycling program for 600 households.
- FISCAL YEAR 1985, CYCLE 2 -
Crookston Crookston began a $25,700 program with funding from
$15,000 Crookston Jobs, Inc. (a non - profit economic development
corporation), the state, and the city. The Crookston
program included:
1. designing a Crookston energy policy, focusing on fiber
fuels and the municipal ownership of renewable energy
systems;
2. organizing energy workshops and promoting
consultations;
3. providing technical assistance to suppliers and users
of fiber fuels and other renewable resources; and
4. planning and promoting car pooling and mass
transportation.
Moorhead Moorhead, in conjunction with Moorhead State University,
$15,000 designed a $17,000 comprehensive energy -use survey and an
energy policy planning study. Moorhead used the results
to adopt a community energy policy to design and implement
future programs.
13
Fridley Fridley initiated a $56,000 project. Minnegasco committed
$15,000 $40,000 for residential weatherization as part of a "House
Doctor" program for low- income residents. In addition,
Fridley offers:
1. neighborhood energy workshops,
2. promotion of MHFA Rental Rehabilitation loans,
3. promotion of MHFA Home Improvement loans, and
4. promotion of Rideshare.
Rochester Rochester began a $96,700 program with funding from
$15,000 Peoples Natural Gas, Rochester Public Utilities, the
Rochester Area Vo -Tech, and the city. The program
included:
1. the establishment of an energy office,
2. a senior citizen house doctor program to install
weatherizaion kits in the homes of 400 elderly
residents,
3. a car clinic,
4. residential energy consultation promotion, and
5. Small - Business Energy Workshops.
Winona County Winona County designed a $52,055 program to expand current
$10,605 curbside recycling in St. Charles, Lewiston, Winona, and
Goodview. The CEC grant allowed recycling to begin at 19
multi- family buildings.
N.W. Regional This project was submitted by a consortium of seven
Dev. Comm. counties Kittson, Marshall, Norman, Pennington, Polk,
$24,799 Red Lake, and Roseau. Objectives include:
1. complete county energy profiles,
2. complete energy profiles on 30 cities,
3. help organize CEC's,
4. complete district heating feasibility studies for 10
communities,
5. provide fiber fuel technical assistance, and
6. work with utilities to perform conservation programs.
- FISCAL YEAR 1985, CYCLE 1
Red Wing Red Wing began a $54,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 state, NSP, local CAP agency, and the city. The program
included:
1. residential weatherization,
2. shared - savings demonstration project on five city
buildings,
3. "Energy Awareness Week," and
4. a solar hot water demonstration project.
14
Aurora Aurora conducted a $58,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 state, Minnesota Power Inter -Cit Y Gas the local CAP
agency, and the city. The program included:
1. neighborhood energy workshops covering the entire
city,
2. distribution of weatherization kits to all
participants,
3. residential energy consultations, and
4. follow -up visits to all participants to encourage
conservation investments.
Worthington Worthington designed a $162,000 program with funding from
$15,000 the state, Peoples Natural Gas, and the city. The budget
included $100,000 of MHFA Energy Loan funds. The program
provided home energy consultations to 500 residents,
distributed weatherization kits to participants, and
marketed the loan funds.
South St. Paul South St. Paul operated a $56,000 program with funding
$15,000 from the state, NSP, and the city. REAP (the Residential
Energy Action Project) attracted residents to neighborhood
energy workshops, provided weatherization kits, home
energy consultations, and follow -up contacts.
Duluth Duluth used the state grant to plan for the expenditure of
$15,000 over $300,000 in city funds. Weatherization,
super- insulation, wind, and furnace conversion activities
were designed.
Hastings Hastings began a $76,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 state, NSP, Minnegasco, and the city. The program offered
neighborhood energy workshops, weatherization kits to
residents, and home energy consultations.
Shakopee Shakopee designed a $9,078 program using city and state
$8,170 funds. The program tested solid waste abatement and
recycling activities for three neighborhoods. Volunteer
groups and businesses participated, and the program has
since expanded.
Richfield Richfield began a $326,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 state, NSP, Minnegasco, and the city. The program
included a "House Doctor" project, a shared - savings
project, neighborhood energy workshops, weatherization
kits, and residential energy consultations.
New Ulm New Ulm started a $41,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 municipal utility and the state. The program included:
1. neighborhood energy workshops,
2. distribution of weatherization kits,
3. distribution of energy conservation literature to all
New Ulm households,
4. residential consultations, and
5. promotion of Minnesota Rideshare and the Brown County
Transportation System.
15
Mankato and These two cities operated a $51,000 program with funding
North Mankato from NSP, both cities, and the state. Joint activities
$27,000 included:
is 1. ten neighborhood energy workshops, weatherization kit
distribution, and residential energy consultations;
2. in- service energy training for 22 elementary school
teachers;
3. "Energy Week ";
4. four small- business weatherization demonstrations;
5. the utilization of volunteers to weatherize seniors
homes; and
6. the production of twelve 30- minute T.Y. energy
conservation programs.
Mankato established energy accounting for 26 municipal
buildings and printed and distributed Mass Transit Users
Guide. North Mankato conducted a feasibility study for an
energy efficient addition to the municipal building.
Winona Winona began a $74,000 program with funding from the
$15,000 state, NSP, the local CAP, and the city. The Winona
program included:
1. neighborhood energy workshops,
2. distribution of weatherization kits to participants,
3. residential energy consultations,
4. follow -up consultations with participants, and
5. mini - workships on specific topics.
Mounds View These two cities managed a $120,000 program with funding
and Blaine from NSP; the local CAP; Ramsey Action Programs, Inc.;
$27,000 Minnesota Rideshare; both cities; and the state. The
Mounds View program included:
1. making energy workshops, weatherization kits, and
consultations available to all residents;
2. free evening energy seminars; and
3. energy education activities in conjunction with
primary and secondary educators.
The Blaine program included:
1. community education to encourage energy code
enforcement;
2. encouragement of energy- efficient community planning
and zoning;
3. workshops, kits, and consultations;
4. Minnesota Rideshare promotion; and
5. promotion of bicycle paths.
16
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting pate 4/25/88
Agenda Item Numbe
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
POLICE STAFFING
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached X
SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached }
As a part of the 1988 budget consideration last fall, the City Council placed $45,747 in the 1988
contingency fund for additional police personnel pending additional staff justification. Chief Lindsay
and members of his staff have reviewed personnel needs of the department and attached is a copy of
his February 16, 1988, memo detailing alternatives, his justification, and recommendation.
concur in Chief Lindsay's recommendation of alternate #3 with the following modification. Given
e the timing of recruiting requirements, we recommend, under alternate #3: the hiring of two
additional police officers effective June 1, 1988; the assignment of an additional officer to
investigation (total of six) effective May 1, 1988; and the establishment of an additional captain's
position to be filled by promotion from within the department after September 1, 1988.
By hiring two officers effective June 1, 1988, we will be `able to quickly fill the patrol division
vacancy created by the assignment of an additional investigator and by delaying the appointment of
the captain until September, the patrol division will have the additional officer during the heavy
summer time activity and the heaviest vacation use period.
I have asked Chief Lindsay to continue working with his staff to develop, as soon as possible, a five
year staffing plan for the department. I have asked the Chief to identify the problem areas and
develop a recommendation for the resources needed to handle the problems. We also believe it is
necessary to address the staffing needs and service demands over the longer term not on a year -to-
year basis. This approach will accomplish that goal.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the City Council pass the attached resolution amending the 1988 Budget by approving
and transferring funding from the contingency fund to the police department budget and amending the
1988 Pay Plan to allow for:
-2 additional police officer positions effective June 1, 1988
-1 additional promotional captain's position effective September 1, 1988
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1987 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn
Center does provide for a contingency appropriation as a part of the General
Fund Budget, and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be
transferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, When the City Council adopted the 1988 General Fund Budget,
the amount of $45,747 was set aside in the contingency appropriation for
additional police personnel pending additional staff justification; and
WHEREAS, The City Manager and the Chief of Police have recommended the
June 1, 1988 hiring of two additional police officers; the assignment of a
police officer to investigation effective May 1, 1988; and the establishment of
an additional captain's position to be filled by promotion from within the
department after September 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the additional justifica-
tion provided by the staff has established the need for the additional personnel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to amend the 1988 General Fund Budget as follows:
Increase the Appropriations for the following line items:
Police Protection No. 31, Salaries No. 4100 $36,636
Police Protection No. 31, PERA - Regular No. 4141 4,396
Police Protection No. 31, Hospitalization Insurance No. 4151 2,089
Police Protection No. 31, Life Insurance No. 4152 11
Police Protection No. 31, Office Furn & Equipment No. 4551 2,615
$45,747
Decrease the Appropriations for the following line items:
Unallocated Departmental Expense No. 80, Contingency No. 4995 $45,747
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1988 EMPLOYEE POSITION AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN
-------------- __..---------------------- ------ --------------------
WHEREAS, Section 2.07 of the City Charter for the City of Brooklyn
Center states that the City Council is to fix the salary or wages of all officers
and employees of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on December 28, 1987, did adopt Resolution
No. 87 -250 which set wages and salaries for the calendar year 1988 by adoption of
the Position and Classification Plan (Schedules A through K) for the calendar
year 1988 which sets ranges and maximums which the City Manager shall be
authorized to pay in classified positions; and
WHEREAS, The City Manager and the Chief of Police have recommended the
June 1, 1988 hiring of two additional police officers; the assignment of a
police officer to investigation effective May 1, 1988; and the establishment of
an additional captain's position to be filled by promotion from within the
department after September 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the additional justifica-
tion provided by the staff has established the need for the additional personnel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to amend the 1988 Position and Classification Plan as follows:
Schedule A, Positions Authorized
Police Department positions authorized:
On June 1, 1988 add two Police Officers
On September 1, 1988 delete one Police Officer and add one Police
Captain (by promotion)
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: February 16, 1988
SUBJECT: Request for Additional Staffing
Alternative #1: Add one uniform officer and transfer one
uniform position to the investigative function as soon as
possible.
Estimated cost for 10 months:
One uniform officer (at P3 position) $21,370.00
One investigator (differential) 1
Total
$22,470.00
Alternative #2: Add one uniform officer and transfer one
position to administration (Captain) last half of year.
Estimated cost for 5 months,
one uniform officer (at P3 position) $10,685.00
estimated cost for 3 months,
Total one captain (at going rate) 11,034.00
$21,719.00
Alternative #3: A combination of alternatives one and two.
The costs for this alternative would be adding the costs
from the first two alternatives except the investigator
differential pay. This was not added in as it is currently
in our 1988 budget.
Total
$43,089.00
Alternative #4: Increase uniform patrol function, fund and
staff in 1989.
After the first of the year I appointed a committee to assist the
administrative staff with reviewing the staffing problems. The
committee included Captains Kline and Downer, Sergeant McComb,
Investigator Monteen, Patrol Officers Kaulfuss, Koncar and
Traxler, Administrative Services Manager Cox, as well as myself.
Other members of the department provided information. You will
note that in some information quoted reference is made to 1986.
This is because all of the 1987 statistics will not be known
until mid - March.
After reviewing all data I made recommendations listing three
alternatives.
They are listed in order of P riorit Y with
alternative number one as the first priority, et cetera. My
recommendations for alternative one and two reflect only upon
Memorandum to G. G. Splinter
Page 2
February 16, 1988
monies already discussed in relations to the 1988 budget.
Alternative number three will impact on the 1989 budget request.
The council transferred $2,615.00 for furniture and $43,132.00
for wages into the contingency fund. Caution was used to avoid
establishing labor negotiations with the troops or union. They
assisted in defining the staffing problems but not in the
recommendations.
Alternative Number One; Before we look at statistics, several
major events impact on this situation. In the past twelve
months, two cases have utilized a large share of the
investigation function. The Kangas homicide in early 1987
utilized 20% of the department's investigative strength for 1987.
All investigators were assigned to the case. Although many
people were talked to, 166 people had in -depth interviews with
our investigators. These were conducted over the metro area plus
out state as well as Superior, Wisconsin. Because of the nature
of the crime, investigators worked for the most part in pairs
when interviewing people.
In January, 1988 the Reed Palmer fraud case is estimated to use
10 -20% of the investigative function for the year. At this time
we believe the fraud will exceed three million dollars. One
investigator has been assigned to work full -time. He is part of
a two -man team paired with an investigator of the Postal
Inspector's Office. He has also been sworn in under a federal
grand jury investigating this matter. It is believed the
investigator will need to be extended beyond the six month
original commitment.
The state legislature has passed several statutes over the past
two years dealing with child protection and welfare. The impact
is now being determined with statistics. (See Attachment A.)
The new statutes require almost everyone in contact with children
to report to police any child abuse or neglect. The investigator
assigned to these cases has indicated it is now requiring most of
her time dealing with child protection cases. The most recent
statistics we have on this matter is from Hennepin County
Community Services Department from January 1, 1987 through June
30, 1987. They logged 175 child protection clients and 96 child
welfare clients from Brooklyn Center. Abuse, protection, welfare
or neglect cases are always referred to the police. Some cases
are closed with an interview. Other cases require in -depth
interviews with doctors, neighbors, child care providers,
teachers, et cetera. The time the investigator works on child
abuse cases is now exceeding ver half o e. Adding this
g f her tim g
with the Reed Palmer case, this utilizes approximately 30% of the
currently authorized strength of the investigative function.
. Memorandum to G. G. Splinter
Page 3
February 16, 1988
Both of these
ma
tters are long-term and were not available for
consideration when the
1988 budget was proposed.
Overall crime statistics have increased since 1984; with a 7%
increase in 1985, 4.5% increase in 1986 and 7% increase in 1987.
Part I and Part II crimes are primarily the responsibility of the
investigative function. Parts I and II have both experienced a
much larger increase than general crime. Part I crimes increased
10% in 1985, 11% in 1986, and 20% in 1987. Part II crime jumped
13% in 1985, 30% in 1986 and 1% in 1987. This equates out to
over 23% increase in Part I crimes 1984 to 1987 and over 32% for
Part II crimes 1984 to 1987.
The impact of the above is obvious. The level of service has
been affected. The larger number of major crime results in
setting priorities. Serious crime is investigated and less
serious is set aside to be handled whe
n ou
get et to it. This
includes minor cases with leads. A couple of events will
illustrate this. Brooklyn Center investigators were responsible
for the issuing of more complaints for felonies at the County
Attorney's Office than any suburb except Bloomington in 1987. In
fact, only the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County Sheriff's
Office and Bloomington issued more.
A recent mail -in survey of people served by the department
conducted by Administrative Assistant Kohagen reflects the
citizens' impressions of our investigators. (See Attachment B.)
The survey indicates the uniform officer fared much better than
the investigator. Investigators scored highest in
Professionalism and courteousness. Citizen satisfaction was the
lowest. Many times, who complains the most gets the priority of
the day.
The committee identified other areas relating to other agencies.
This includes police costs per capita (Attachment C),
investigators' ratio to reported crime, et cetera. The fact that
we have not increased the number of investigators since before
moving into this building in 1971 should probably stand alone as
a need for additional investigators.
I request the addition of one investigator to bring the approved
complement for investigators to six. One will still be assigned
from the uniform function for a one -year training period.
Because of the requirements of the uniform function, I do not
believe we can assign an investigator without replacing the
patrol position. I view this request as the number one need of
the department.
Memorandum to G. G. Splinter
Page 4
February 16, 1988
Alternative Number Two: This request involves the staffing of
the administrative function. The statistics from above impact on
this request as well. The reorganization calling for two
captains in 1982 was adequate at that time. Since then several
changes have occurred. To name a few, we added three patrol
officers, if approved one additional investigator, domestic abuse
program, North Hennepin mediation, LOGIS implemented within the
police department, the Mayor's Drug Awareness program, 9 -1 -1
telephone program, crime prevention fund, et cetera. These
require active participation on regularly meeting committees.
This requires more than attending a meeting. It requires
paperwork sometimes running into many hours. Other items started
since 1982 involving much time include the Right -to -Know, safety
committees, and since the Office Manager left the supervision of
dispatchers.
Besides this, the day -to -day operation of the department has
become more intense. Captains review most cases before
complaints are issued. All cases are reviewed for content,
elements of the crime, et cetera. Follow -up is assigned to both
patrol and investigators. Other duties of the captains include;
designing and monitoring schedules, reviewing training needs and
establishing training programs, daily contact with County and
City Attorneys to update cases for trial, assign and monitor
officers' court attendance, monitor and schedule equipment repair
including squad cars, radios, communications equipment, et
cetera. Equipment repair is a large item as it requires daily
monitoring.
.
g
Dealing with the public on any given day will be the most time
consuming. Human nature as it is results with most people
wanting or asking to start at the top. Most jobs in private
industry, the management and employees all work the same hours,
making it easier to check out a complaint in a timely fashion.
More often than not, in police work, the officer is either on his
days off or sleeping. This extends the time it takes to return
phone calls. When we consider all of the above it seems to
eat
u the
p available time the captains have to carry out staff
projects plus supervise a 24 -hour, seven day a week operation at
an efficient level.
A third captain will provide the flexibility the staff needs to
address the various functions of the department. Adding
supervision to the dog watch is important. Officers need contact
with management personnel. Feedback is important to evaluate if
the goals of the department are being met. A third captain will
not spend all of his time on dog watch. The captains now do not
spend all their time on their assigned shift. The captain needs
the flexibility to address his assignments on a 24 -hour a day,
Memorandum to G. G. Splinter
Page 5
February 16, 1988
seven day a week operation. Dispatchers work 24 hours a day.
Supervision of them requires communication on all three shifts.
Uniform officers work 24 hours a day and supervision of them
requires communication on all three shifts. Investigators work
two shifts plus Saturdays and Sundays and supervision of them
requires the flexibility of a Captain being available more than
one shift eight hours a day for five days.
A third captain will provide the flexibility to extend our
supervision and staff assignments. In turn, this will allow us
more time to develop new programs and interact with the public.
I request the addition of one captain. I also recommend that a
patrol officer be added before the captain is appointed so that
there is no negative impact on the patrol function. You will
note in the recommendation on the front that a patrol officer is
added for five months to allow time for the officer to be trained
before the Captain is appointed.
Alternative Number Three: This request is a combination of
alternatives one and two, therefore all listed comments for those
alternatives apply.
Alternative Number Four: The committee has provided
information identifying several problems. One problem is the
addition of one patrol officer does not really affect a 24 -hour a
day, seven day a week operation. It takes several officers
before an impact is felt. At that point additional equipment
would be required. This will include vehicles, portable radios,
resuscitators, et cetera. Some suggestions I received were to
add a traffic car, another canine officer, more proactive
assignments in residential neighborhoods, a power shift, a school
liaison officer, more shift officers, et cetera. All suggestions
have merit. Because of this and the cost of equipment, I would
like to address this in the 1989 budget request.
This will give the staff time to study the impact of each
suggestion. Hopefully, we will be able to select those
suggestions that add the most to the department needs. The time
also will let us study the problems more in- depth. Currentl Y I
have the Administrative Assistant analyzing what the department's
actual manpower experience was for 1987. This study will tell us
the authorized staffing versus actual staffing.
Additional statistical data is attached that is self - explanatory.
No narrative was rovided in order to keep this report p p p t as short
as possible.
. •F. -..5� y1��/'Ir • Y'• "T� '��yTAw.n �• ., yi�•.y 1..�.j,•.. �.. ��. .. .. h � ��
�.. 99dd
zs 0CD0 +r N r WOWN p�fr b,O� Orto N OHO 0 o O'o N o ry
a -
11 N 4 4, J .. e w ,Z N O TOO O W �p
I O .�+ W N 2 0 t 9 8 w% O V I N� O W� O N N N� ; 2 8- 4
„
n
�i o�ccwo��nwNwwv +C0C�'.mt�i Obea&'+
w o�3roo�o'I�'o- �- �oro2t'�` �!° �o�' o�. �o�oLSob��owo�000083wKQ3rb�3wo +.�wS�'
0000tooNOOO coo 00%NOOk" pobwicyocwo.. CPU COON - W -40ow0600-4-4
n
u w W�lOONO2tDbOOr�dDW Vlr OWOOOa$OO+rdO OO.+W - �rrbbW OOOW Jr00
u
a
1/
n
n
r 0 0 N O r 0 Jr O r b VI �7 VI r b VI O O �i O O b -� W O %A O O O -4 r Co N 0 0 0.- O O VI
• • • • • • • • • r • • r r r •'• • • • • • r • • • • • • • • • • • • r M • • • • r • • • • • • • r • w
u -
n •. p W tai lu tai N . ..f ►� . p.
R T -1ow TOso OHO OSj rOO� 2rOW�0� OOl1f bO.CT �0, ODW t�f N W N
W
r
w
co
m
V
OwC.O ODONNNN.O 2r Ow ...��oot,,,"$000. �.O�OOO5'023 r M
W w O.
-� Fi�OOWO- �NrOOOO tT1-dW OO�NO0 uni0ONW0 0 0%0 0 rvirMWOO 000%D VAVI
ORlTONO� +Nr Or pmviW�OV�O�OO�WrOONNO Or OOOOOCDW O- +�000ON Ob�D
i
IF
It
Q
g �
In
r r ■
m
Mfl
Q
2
O
.g
ie
U
v
v
T
v
Y
v
•
Attachment B
BROOKLYN CENTER
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITIZEN MAIL -IN RESPONSE SURVEY
i
CONDUCTED
WINTER 1987
i
I T T -, I�V S -r I S 1, C 7 1 -RVE'�,-
Z- N I —
GENERAL INFORMATION
-------------------
AGE RACE
UNDER 16 0 WHITE 96.7 °.a
15 -25 11 8.,
/. BLACK 1 .6 10
26-35 27.87% ANIFRICAN INDIAN 1.64
36- 4 5- -, ) 3 D/
2 /0 ORIENTAL 0
16
& -55 13.1i% OTHER 0
56-65 13. 1.1
OVER 65 8.20%
LOCATION - OF - INCIDENT
0 ------------------
HOUSE 17.541%
APARTMENT 13. 110/
STORE 6.56%
OFFICE 6 . 5 6 °0
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 8.
ACCIDENT 0
CAR 4.9 1%
SCHOOL 1.64%
GROUP HOME 1.64%
WALK-IN 8.20%
DWI* 1.64%
*Individual responded. on the questionnaire
to a DWI arrest. Questionnaire was sent to
the individual regarding a lock-out call.
Based on a total of 61 responses.
9
^
�L��I�.\i
--------------
� T�S �0 E 1 h CIL 11D p P IL N S R
�
� ---------------------------------------------
W�`LS IHE
CL E��
� Pj 8I.80�� ; }.92% 3.28%
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAS THE
� C EIDI K
c OUDT11 85.21% i.S, i%
---------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a total of Gl reapooaea.
�
�
�
INITIAL OFFICER
---------------
NOT NC)
YES NO UNDECIDED APPL. ANSWER,
---------------------------------------------
WAS THE
RESPONSE
TIMELY 81.97% 6.55% 8.20% 3.28%
--------------------------
WAS THE
OFFICER
PROFESSIONAL 95.03% 1.64% 3.28%
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAS THE
OFFICER
COURTEOUS 91.80% 1.64% 4.92% 1.G4
---------------------------------------------------------------
WERE
Y 0 '11:1
SATISFIED 77.04% 11.18% 11.48
---------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE TIME
------- - - - - --
CITIZEN,
PERCEIVED ACTUAL
--------- ---------
5 MINUTES OR LESS 13.11% 36.06%
6-10 MINUTES 39.34% 18.03%
11-15 MINUTES 19.67% 18.03%
16-20 MINUTES 11.18% 3.28%
21-30 MINUTES 6.56% 9.0%
31-45 MINUTES 3.28% 9.84%
46-60 MINUTES 1.61% 0
OVER ONE HOUR 0 1.92%
UNDECIDED 1.64% 0
NOT APPLICABLE* 3.28% 0
*Some respondents had requested aid by walking in to the police
department and speaking initially to a clerk or dispatcher.
In a couple of these cases, the respondent felt the response
time was not applicable.
Based on a total of 61 responses.
3 T 1 G.V-
------------
07
YES "-0 1" N D E C I D E D APPL. A `: S ElR�
---------------------------------------------
WA S A
FOLLOW-UP
REQUIRED
": - 1 ;lu
84% J%
IF A FOLLOW-UP WAS REQUIRED:
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAS THE
I N V E S -_," I G C'Clc 0 R
PROMPT 61.29 7 i i
--------------------------------------------------------
[ S TH
I NVESTIGATOR
NVESTICATOR,
THOROUGH 71 . 2 °%
14.29%
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAS THE
INVESTIGATOR
T
P RO F "' S S 10 \. A L 85.72% 7 . 1 7.1
---------------------------------------------------------------
WAS THE
INVESTIGATOR
COURTEOUS 85. 7.1�1%
I � .1. 7.11%
---------------------------------------------------------------
WERE YOU
KEPT
INFORMED 64.29 28.57% 7 .140%
---------------------------------------------------------------
WERE
YOU
SATISFIED* 57.14% 14.290/ 28.577/
---------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a total of 61 responses.
Attachment C
PER CAPITA COST FOR POLICE SERVICE
i s
St. Louis Park $92.27
Golden Valley 85.55
Richfield 81.57
Bloomington 77.47
Minnetonka 67.30
Brooklyn Center 67.22
Edina 62.25
Brooklyn Park 58.41
Eden Prairie 55.39
Plymouth 51.42
Average (not including
Brooklyn Center) $70.18
P0PU L C, f`.•1
19ui
j
W � .
- F ;
40
All
BC BP CR( ELI MTK StP EP FRF PL'f
1987 POPULATION
BK CTR BK PK CRYSTAL EDINA MTKA ST L PK
29,759 53,000 25,373 44,940 43,600 42,780
ED PR RHFLD PLY
30,200 43,500 43,500
i
CALLS FOR
1937
2 6
24
22
is
e 15
Zc
4
9G 9P GR( EN MIK S P EP fF PLY
1987 CALLS FOR SERVICE
BK CTR BK PK CRYSTAL EDINA MTKA ST L PK
= __ - -22, 645_- _ - - -24, 536_ - - - -- 11,346 19,200 24,790 18,538
I
ED PR RHFLD PLY
15,130 19,200 18,748
FEL M-,-1 FL,A,I r
13D 1387
1JD
110 /
100
so
7
/ J
4D J
!
10 �
p
BC BP CRf ELI M7K S P EP FF PLY
1987 FELONY COMPLAINTS
BK CTR BK PK CRYSTAL EDINA MTKA ST L PK
126 82 18 112 94 110
ED PR RHFLD PLY
24 52 42
FELONY M- IPD,IC \1T5 1531UED
110 19�J3
1 G7
90
50
70
63 � f
60
r
r'
0 /.
EY CTR SK PK CHTSTAL mire K rK %
TS
FELON f %--�0t-
1317 1957
120
110 ;
100
90'
f77
70
€77
40
30
X
10
0 /
9C CiR BC PK cf;rYgr L EI INA
CLASSIFICATION
-------- - - - - --
( Part One)
Murder
Rape
Robbery
Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Auto Theft
Arson
- - - - - - - - - -
(Part Two)
Other Assaults
Forgery / Counter.
Fraud
Embezzlement
Stolen Property
Vandalism
Weapons
Prostitution
Other Sex Off.
Narcotic
Family /Children
D.U.I.
.Liquor Laws
Disorderly
Gambling
Other
PART I A R R EST`.
1:� cis
mo
3r7D
154
1C0
l
54
4
8{ GTR B: PK CM12TAL EDINA WTKA
PART 11 A.RR E
i 198
2 2
1.8
1.6
1.4
8 1.2
0
1
� 1
4.8�
QEi / F
Q4 ;' ff
4. ///
4
E3C CTR B{ PK CR)STAL EDIR4 AfTKA
PART I C RI h E
1988
`
2,689
2F '
Z4
22 2,080
2
1,678 1, 762 ,
g 1.4
S 1.2
1 / 928
a4
a
E3V GTR W, PK W STrL. E D I t 1;
PART I CRI NeIES CLEARED
569 583 585
Soo
420
4r1]
311
203 /
i
103 l
0
SK GTR W, PF: WNTAL E1INA hffT :A
! PA FT 11 � _. R I r E
3,939 19EoFj
as
3
� 5
'e
2,108
8
1,679
1.5
1,123 1,164 /
EF CTR W. PV Cf '(tS3 iL EDIR4 F.iNA
PART 11 CRINIES CLEARED
2,195 1 ;
2
1.0
1.6
1.4
"e
12
g
L 1 892
r.
804 748
Ll u
600
as
0 / / / /
EK GTR B{ PK CFUSTAL EDINA hfrKA
SUMMARY OF SURVEY COMMENTS
1. "Deep up the good work!"
2. "I never heard from you again. I felt like I was written off'.
Crime was never solved."
3. "Call was an attempted break -in during the middle of the night.
Suggest offering tips for remaining hours til day light. Offer
to escort to neighbor's home if citizen too scared to stay
alone."
4. "It was a hit and run and I gave the police the license number
of the car that hit my parked car. The police never called me
back. I never heard from the police after my report even though
they said they would call. Case was never finished."
5. "Police have always been prompt and professional."
6. "Beep up the good work."
7. "I was very satisfied - got my car back within about 48 hours.
Brooklyn Center called and said Mpls. police found it. I'm
thankful for your service."
8. "Stolen item was never recovered."
9. "Yard was torn up by car, officer said not much chance to solve
problem.` With new golf course cars are patrolling more often,
we had very few before new building but yard still got trashed.
"Seems to be a problem there."
10. "Hub caps stolen on auto. Called me at work explaining they
would patrol apartment parking lot more often. Never was
contacted again."
11. "Everything was handled very satisfactorily. I have seen the
BCPD in action because I work for Dayton's Brookdale in loss
prevention. They have always been very professional and timely
in their aid to our calls. The BC officers work very hard and
are an asset to their community."
12. "Needed assistance for a stray cat. agency came quickly and was
pleasant."
13. "Officer did not lend much help in getting further help in the
problem we had here. I was very upset at the time and
definitely needed further assistance with the crisis we had
here."
-. x
- 2 -
14. "I think the police are A.O.K. Beep up the good work!"
15. "A couple of times we did have assault charges filed against a
few of the boys and they seemed to have been lost somewhere in
the paperwork department, not getting forwarded to the courts or
the appropriate people and when we have called, it has taken a
long time for the reports to be found."
16. "It was a theft of small items and required no investigation."
17. "I would have liked to have follow -up information on the
incident. We called a few days later and they did give us the
information."
18. "After initial contact I was unable to contact the property
officer due to the officer's day -off, vacation, etc. After
several week's delay I was helped by desk clerk and uniformed
officers."
19. "Very satisfied - he was really nice and helpful."
20. "Very good department."
21. "Except for one .specifically named officer, "the department
shows a great deal of professionalism in our community. You
should be very proud of the job they are doing."
22• "A woman was seen using my credit card and I told the
investigator about it. He was going to check her description at
some stores. I never heard anymore. However, if my credit
union wouldn't file fraud charges, I guess there wasn't anything
the police could do anyway."
23. "I think the BC police are very* nice and quick to help you."
24. The officer's response was not timely as it took him 16 -20
minutes and "I was only 3 blocks away from police.department."
":Contact was not made until 2 months after. I never heard about
any progress." On traffic violations officers need "an attitude
adjustment."
25. "The officer that came to help me was very nice and very
helpful. So far I have no gripes."
26. "The stolen property was never recovered."
27. "The olice were real helpful."
p
l
- 3 -
28• "The evening my car was broken into so were 4 or 5 others in our
townhouse association. Since then I have never seen a police
patrol the area as he should be doin -."
29. "In my role as Associate Principal at Earle Brown Elementary
School I have found the police at BCPD helpful and
professional."
30. "We would prefer recover-,- of the stolen property."
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER council Meeting Date 4/25/88
Agenda Item Number
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING SYSTEMS TO ACCOMPLISH REFUSE RECYCLING MANDATES IN
BROOKLYN CENTER
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
Signature - title
MANAGER'S REVIEW /RECOMMENDATION:
No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached X
• SUMMARY EXPLANATION: (supplemental sheets attached
Your staff is currently reviewing arious alternative systems and methods of complying with th
g Y e
refuse and recycling mandates impacting Brooklyn Center in conjunction with our joint powers
agreement (Brooklyn Center, Crystal, and New Hope). We've already held one public information
meeting in which we reviewed preliminary criteria and sought comments and input from the public.
As a part of our staff work, we will be jointly evaluating various systems or methods of
accomplishing the tasks needed to meet the mandates. Attached is a recent article from the
newspaper in which it chronicles the County's discussions about increasing the recycling requirements
from 16% by 1990 to 39% by 1992.
We have scheduled the next Brooklyn Center public information meeting at Constitution Hall at 7:30
in the evening on May 16, 1988. At that meeting it is our intention to have an analysis of a number
of alternatives and a staff recommended alternate to the City Council. Attached please find a copy
of a table indicating the criteria the staff proposes to use to judge the alternatives available to us.
The criteria are placed in three groups labeled "top priorities," "high priorities," and "moderate
priorities." This is similar to the groupings that we use in our planning process. Please review the
priorities in these general groupings very carefully as your staff will be using them to judge the
various alternatives available to us. I would like to have you discuss Monday evening whether or not
all the priorities you wish are included on the list and whether or not the priorities listed are in
your minds in the appropriate grouping —top, high, or moderate.
RECOMMENDATION
We are requesting that the City Council approve by motion the listing of priorities as submitted or as
you may wish to modify.
CRITERIA FOR ANALYZING SYSTEMS TO ACCOMPLISH REFUSE - RECYCLING
MANDATES
Top Priorities
- System should be proven capable of accomplishing recycling
mandates of 16% recycling initially and 39% by 1990.
- System should promote sound, ecological practices
- System must provide consistent, reliable service
- System should be cost effective on a total cost basis
_High Priorities
- System should provide a long term solution - -not a
quick fix
- System should minimize city administrative burden
- System should allow for choice of vendors
- System should involve private sector competition
Moderate Priorities
- System should reduce refuse hauling trip to:
1. reduce wear and tear on city streets
2. reduce noise and pollution in the neighborhood
'
enne in County
mandates recycling'
By Jim Parsons The resolution, which passed by a 4
Staff Writer to 3 vote yesterday, did not spell out
what a mandatory program would
The Hennepin County commission- involve. But Commissioner Mark
ers decided Tuesday to put some Andrew said that mandatory usually
muscle into their oft- repeated threats means that garbage haulers are not
to make all communities in the coun- allowed to pick up garbage from resi-
ty develop effective garbage recycling dents who don't separate their recy-
programs. clables.
The commissioners set guidelines "We hope it doesn't come to that,"
that virtually dictate that the 46 cities said Andrew, "but we have to send a
have a residential recycling program message to these communities.
that includes weekly or twice -a- They've got to understand that we
month curbside pickup of cans, glass are serious."
containers and newspapers.
In addition to taking over a commu-
The board gave each community ap- nity's pickup service, the county
proximately a year — by May 1, would also make the cities pick up
1989 — to have a household pro- the full tab for that service. At pre-
gram that removes 10 percent of the sent, the county pays from SO percent
waste by separating cans, bottles and to 80 percent of the recycling costs.
papers.
At present, nearly half the cities don't The resolution, which was written by
have curbside pickup although many Andrew, also sets a new goal of recy-
of those cities expect to have pro- cling 39 percent of a community's
grams operating sometime this year, garbage by 1992. The current goal is
Only a handful of cities, including 16 percent by 1990 and that goal
Minneapolis, have twice -a -month remains.
pickup and only Plymouth hag a Both those goals involve recycling
once-a -week program. Frequent pick - waste created. by businesses and com-
re is considered crucial to making
recycling convenient for residents mercial operations, which account
and, consequently, to get a high for about half of the total waste.
enough level of voluntary citizen par- Many communities now get credit
ticipation to reach the 10 percent for recycling that is being done b
goal. private firms without any prodding
If communities don't reach that goal, from any government agency. But, to
the commissioners said that the reach the 39 percent figure, most
county will step in and run the curb- communities will have to develop a
side program. And participation will plan to significantly increase that
be mandatory for residents. participation. John Keefe, E.F. (Bud) Robb and
Randy Johnson voted no. They all
The same is true for yard wastes, said they support the resolution's
including leaves and grass clippings. purpose but wanted more discussion
Some communities now pick up yard of the details within the board and
waste, but the 39 percent figure prob- with the communities.
ably will make it necessary for every
city to have such a program. Recycling is required by state law
and is administered by the Metropol-
Andrew was joined by Commission- itan Council in the Twin Cities area.
ers Jeff Spartz, John Derus and Sam The council set the goal of 16 percent
Sivanich in approving the resolution. of the waste being recycled by the
end of 1989.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: April 21, 1988
SUBJECT: Yen Ching Restaurant, On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License
In the fall of last year Yen Ching restaurant renewed its Class
A, on -sale liquor license for 1988.
On Friday, April 18, 1988 Mr. Ralph Kuo, owner of the restaurant,
came in to meet with Barb Cox, Administrative Services Manager,
and me and informed us that he had a remodeling scheduled for the
restaurant during May of 1988.
Kuo stated he felt he had a lot of unused space for which he was
paying rent and taxes. The purpose of the remodeling was to cut
down the size of the restaurant to approximately 100 seats. We
informed Kuo that the City's liquor ordinance requires 150 seats;
and if went below 150 seats, he could no longer hold a liquor
license.
Kuo inquired as to whether he could serve wine and strong beer.
We informed him that this could be worked out; however, the
strong beer would require an ordinance amendment. We informed
him that the liquor license was not refundable, but we feel that
it could be worked out so he could operate for the remainder of
1988 for wine and beer without paying additional fees.
Kuo then requested that since he had a large amount of liquor on
hand that he be allowed to serve it through the end of 1988. He
stated he would then apply for wine and beer licenses for 1989.
We told him the ordinance did not allow the seating to be waived.
Kue made this request several times and was given the same answer
each time.
Kuo then asked if he could present his problem to the City
Council and ask them to waive the seating requirement. We
informed him we would run the situation passed the city attorney
and send him a written response. He would then need to contact
us with his decision on how to proceed.
I then proceeded to contact City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to
explain the situation to him. LeFevere advised that he concurred
with my opinion on this problem and further advised that as soon
as the proposed remodeling took place that the restaurant would
no longer qualify for a liquor license. He advised that he would
2 -
recommend the Yen Ching restaurant make application for wine and
beer licenses for the remainder of the year. He felt that in
consideration of the liquor- license fee being non - refundable that
we could waive the fees for wine and beer.
A letter with information was hand delivered to Kuo on Wednesday,
April 13. A copy of the letter is attached.
Cox followed up my letter with a telephone call. Kuo indicated
he would make application for wine and beer licenses and the
proper applications were forwarded to him.
In 1987 the State Legislature authorized cities to enact
ordinance changes to allow premises that hold both on -sale wine
and beer licenses to sell beer with an alcohol content in excess
of 3.2 percent. Attached to this is the proposed change in the
non - intoxicating liquor section of Chapter 11, the liquor
ordinance.
This change, when effective, would then authorize Yen Ching under
their new beer license (and Denny's and Dayton's restaurants
under their existing licenses) to sell beer with an alcohol
content in excess of 3.2 percent.
I recommend that the fee for Yen Ching's wine and beer licenses
be waived because they paid $8200 for their liquor license which
they will be unable to use once their remodeling is completed.
The fee for the liquor license is not refundable.
I also recommend that the City Council pass the proposed non -
intoxicating liquor attachment. I do not foresee any additional
police problems resulting from increasing the alcohol content of
the beer sold at these restaurants.
Attachments
CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF
[ B:ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
E r TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C NTR EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE
911
April 12, 1988
Mr. Ralph Kuo
Yen Ching Restaurant
5900 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Kuo:
I conferred with the City Attorney regarding your request
concerning your liquor license and the number of seats in your
restaurant. The City Attorney concurs with my opinion. He
states that once you remodel and go below 150 seats this would be
a violation of the conditions of license and your license would
become invalid. He further states that you would then need to
apply for a wine and beer license to serve wine and beer. He
feels there is no way for you to continue selling liquor once
g � you
Y
go below 150 seats.
In order to sell wine and beer from the time of remodeling on,
you would need to contact my office and make application for
these licenses. At that time we would not require a background
investigation as one has already been completed on you. We
would, however, need to submit your application to the City
Council and state for approval. Although the state issues wine
licenses, the fees are collected by the City. We would recommend
to the City Council that since you have paid for a liquor license
for the year and this money is not refundable, they waive the fee
for your wine and beer licenses. We would not submit the wine
and beer licenses to the Council for approval until application
forms were completed and submitted to us.
i�
Mr. Ralph Kuo
Page 2
April 12, 1988
I would be able to have your problem placed on the agenda for the
April 25 City Council meeting if you notify me by Friday, April
15. Please contact me if you have any further questions. _
Sincerely,
James Lindsay
Chief of Police
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
pjw
the use of its guests not less than 100 guest rooms
with bedding and other usual, suitable and necessary
furnishings in each room, which is provided at the main
entrance with a suitable lobby, desk, and office for
the registration of its guests on the ground floor,
which employs an adequate staff to provide suitable and
usual service, and which maintains under the same
management and control as the rest of the establishment
and has, as an integral part thereof, a dining room
with appropriate facilities for seating not less than
100 guests at one time, where the general public are,
in consideration of payment therefor, served with meals
at tables.
10. The term "restaurant" means any establishment under the
control of a single proprietor or manager, having
appropriate facilities to serve meals and for seating
not less than 150 guests at one time, and where in
consideration of payment therefor, meals are regularly
served at tables to the general public, and which
employs an adequate staff to provide the usual and
suitable service to its guests, and a significant part
of the business of which is the serving of foods.
11. The term "premises" as used in this ordinance, shall
mean the inside of the building or the leased space
inside a building as shown on the plan submitted to the
Chief of Police with the original license. Outside
areas, such as patios or parking lots, shall not be
included unless specifically listed on the license or
special permission in writing is obtained for a limited
period of time under certain conditions.
Section 11 -702. LICENSE REQUIRED.
1. No person except wholesalers or manufacturers to the
extent authorized under State license, and except the
municipal liquor store, shall directly or indirectly
deal in, sell, or keep for sale any intoxicating liquor
without first having received a license to do so as
provided in this ordinance.
2. "On -Sale Liquor" licenses shall be issued only to
restaurants which are conducted in such a manager that
a significant part of the revenue for a license year is
the sale of foods, and to hotels conducted in such a
manner that, of that part of the total revenue derived
from the serving of foods and intoxicating liquors, a
significant part thereof for the license year is
derived from the serving of foods. The term
"significant part" is defined under each license class.
-2-
4. When the license is for a premise where the building is
not ready for occupancy, the commencement date for
computation of the license fee for the initial license
period shall be the date on which a certificate or
occupancy is issued.
5. No transfer of a license shall be permitted from place
to place or person to person without complying with the
requirements of an original application except as
provided by Subdivision 9 of this section. For
purposes of this subdivision, a change in the
controlling interest of the licensee is deemed a
transfer of the license.
6. No part of the fee paid for any license issued under
this ordinance shall be refunded except in the
following instances upon application to the Council
within 30 days from the happening of the event. The
Council may in its judgment refund a pro rata portion
of the fee for the unexpired period of the license,
computed on a monthly basis, when operation of the
licensed business ceases not less than one month before
expiration of the license because of:
a. destruction or damage of the licensed premises by
fire or other catastrophe.
b. the licensee's illness.
C. the licensee's death.
d. a change in the legal status of the municipality
making it unlawful for a licensed business to
continue.
7 At the time of each original application for a license,
the applicant shall pay in full an investigation fee,
in an amount set by City Council resolution. All
investigation fees are nonrefundable.
8. At any time that an additional investigation is
required because of a license renewal, a change in the
ownership or control of the licensee or because of an
enlargement, alteration, or extension of premises
previously licensed, the licensee shall pay an
investigation fee as set forth in subdivision 7 of this
section. The investigation fee shall accompany the
application.
9. Where a new application is filed as a result of
incorporation by an existing licensee and the
ownership, control and interest in the license are
unchanged, no additional license fee will be required.
w Mt _
1
t 12
113 pi;
LIQUOR ACT 340A.404
(4) clubs or congressionally chartered veterans organizations provided that the
t organization has been in existence for at least three years and liquor sales will only be
E. to members and bona fide guests;
Bred by a wholesaler to (5) sports facilities located on land owned by the metropolitan sports commission;
be for a quantity of more and 1,
(6) exclusive liquor stores. j.
(For text of subds 2 to 4, see :BLS 1986)
N ,y Subd. 5. Wine licenses. (a) A municipality may issue an on -sale wine license with f
t e approval of the commissioner to a restaurant having facilities for seating at least '
:i l 25 guests at one time. A wine license
permits the sale ofwine of up to 14 percent alcohol
by volume for consumption with the sale of food. A wine license authorizes the sale i; !
of wine on all days of the week unless the issuing authority restricts the license's
a
.lolesaler selling to retailers authorization to the sale of wine on all days except Sundays.
Thursday of each calendar`.` (b) The governing body of a municipality may by ordinance authorize a holder of
retail licensee purchasing an on -sale wine license issued pursuant to paragraph (a) who is also licensed to sell
vholesaler who, on the first; nonintoxicating malt liquors at on -sale pursuant to section 340A.411, and whose
gross
-day period, or a verifieds receipts are at least 60 percent attributable to the sale of food, to sell intoxicating malt
e reported. The name and' liquors at on -sale without an additional license.
ostdated check, or a check' Subd. 6. Counties. (a) A county board may issue an annual on -sale intoxicating i
the commissioner at that liquor license within the area of the county that is unorganized or unincorporated to
cures the delinquency b7`, a bowling center, restaurant, or club with the approval of the commissioner.
emitted in triplicate to the`: (b) A county board may also issue up to ten seasonal on -sale licenses for the sale
ness day following the da}¢ of intoxicating liquor within the area of the coup that is unorganized '
g county rganized or unincorporat- �
ed to a restaurant or club with the approval of the co mmissi t
PP oner. Notwithstanding
. equired by subdivision section 340A.412, subdivision 8, a seasonal license is valid for a period specified by the
`— places available for- board, not to exceed six months. Not more than one license may be issued for any one r.
meats posted shad d
:; premises during any consecutive 12 -month period.
leaf
S 7
er of the informati Subd. 6a. Seasonal licenses; counties. A county may issue seasonal on -sale intox-
otice. icating liquor licenses of periods specified in the licenses, which may not exceed six ;
ndising period allowed by< months, or in the case of Lake county, nine months. The county board shall determine
ing the date of invoice an�' the fee for such a license. Not more than one seasonal on -sale license may be issued
days, to and including the;; to any one premises in any 12 -month period.
anent by check during theme`: (For text of subds 7 to 9, see M..S1986
J
U be considered paymenC
.all be deposited promptly Subd. 10. Temporary on -sale licenses. The governing body of a municipality may g
presentation for payment issue to a club or charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization in existence for I
eemed delinquent for any ; at least three years a temporary license for the on -sale of intoxicating liquor in
•pute between the license connection with a social event within the municipality sponsored by the licensee. The
at owing as a result of the . license may authorize the on -sale of intoxicating liquor for not more than three 1
e retail liquor business at consecutive days, and may authorize on -sales on premises other than premises the z t
t respect to each locatiotV licensee owns or permanently occupies. The license may provide that the licensee may
at two or more locations contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full -year on -sale u
)r more ownership in two . intoxicating liquor license issued by any municipality. The licenses are subject to the
terms, including a license fee, imposed by the issuing municipality. Licenses issued ± c
under this subdivision are subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of
intoxicating liquor except section 340A.409 and those laws and ordinances which by
their nature are not applicable. Licenses under this subdivision are not valid unless first "
approved by the commissioner of public safety. S 9
SES. A county under this section may issue a temporary license only to a premises + ?#
sting liquor license to the located in the unincorporated or unorganized territory of the county. F }
History: 1987 c S s 1,2; 1987 c 27 s 1, 1987 c 29 s 1; 1987c 152 art 1 s 1; 1987c 310 r;
s 8, 1987 c 328 s 2 z,
k � ri
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-
106 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF
ORDINANCES, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
BEER WITH AN ALCOHOL CONTENT IN
EXCESS OF 3.2 PERCENT TO HOLDERS OF
BOTH WINE AND BEER LICENSES
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
That the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center
be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Section 1. Brooklyn Center Code Section 11 -106, Subd. 4 is
amended to read as follows:
Subdivision 4. Licensed premises who are granted both
on -sale wine and on -sale nonintoxicated malt liquor licenses by
the City Council are authhorized to sell beer with an alcohol
content in excess of 3.2 percent.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption
and thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underlining indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to
deleted.)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-
602, SUBDIVISION 2A, OF THE
BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES,
TO CHANGE THE PERCENT OF REVENUE
DERIVED FROM THE SERVING OF FOOD
FOR ON -SALE WINE LICENSES
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
That the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center
be, and hereby is, amended as follows:
Section 1. Brooklyn Center Code Section 11 -602, Subd. 2A is
amended to read as follows:
a. for wine licenses, the term "significant part"
means (50 %] 60% or more of the applicable revenue
derived from the serving of food.
0 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption
and thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of , 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underlining indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be
deleted.)
A--5
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on April 25, 1988:
CIGARETTE
Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 N. Lilac Drive
City Clerk
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brookdale Assembly of God 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Brooklyn Center National Little League Lions Park
T. J. Cinnamons Bakery Brookdale Center
Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard
Leann Chin, Inc. 6040 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Boulevard
Rachel's Frozen Custards 6034 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 4.
Sanitarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
Brooklyn Center American Legion Evergreen Park
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
Loop- Belden - Porter Co. 315 Royalston Ave. N.
Building Official
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard
North Star Dodge Center, Inc. 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard
City Clerk
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINES
Don Waletzko 8751 Dallas Lane
Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Morgan Ave. N.
Humboldt Square Cleaners 6824 Humboldt Ave. N.
Sanitarian „ L
RENTAL DWELLINGS N''
Initial:
Thomas & Joanne Limond Humboldt Square Apts.
Duane & Jessie Erickson 7019 Dallas Road
Tracy & Ray Rice 7037 Logan Ave. N.
Kim McDonough 4703 68th Ave. N.
Renewal:
Ewing Square Associates Ewing Square Townhouses
United Homes Corporation 5600 Aldrich Ave. N.
James & Yvonne Lyons 5303 Emerson Ave. N.
John A. Dotray 5642 Emerson Ave. N.
Creed Carson 4201 Lakeside Ave. N. #214
Eugene L. Temple 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. 1 -235
Jerry Truman 5519, 23 Lyndale Ave. N.
Don & Arlene Benson 5611 Lyndale Ave. N.
United Homes Corporation 6825, 27 Noble Ave. N.
Joan Page 3112 O'Henry Road
Robert W. Johnson 6801 Scott Ave. N.
Gary & Carol Meinke 3601 47th Ave. N.
William & Linda Bjerke 3614, 16 50th Ave. N. �. }}
Kennethy Ready Jr. 1019 73rd Ave. N. �. �• (�VGl/1�1r2n(
Director of Planning
and Inspection
SIGN HANGER n y �
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. 1700 West 78th Street �• C.l (/� O �
Building Official 4- k
SWIMMING POOL
Beach Condominiums 4201, 4207 Lakeside Ave. N. A
Days Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard �
Sanitarian
GENERAL APPROVAL : '/;.
D. K. Weeks, City Clerk